Yes, so we can do philosophy more correctly.

I don’t see why not. — schopenhauer1

Right, that's why the auto-discussion that follows doesn't really get started. If life doesn't entail evil or suffering doesn't entail then the following discussion about what to or not do changes.

I am saying that if you retain that all suffering is evil, and life entails suffering — schopenhauer1

Right, so I'm saying we shouldn't retain that bit. So, what follows in a sense doesn't from my position. Is the purpose of the first bit just to make the second part sound necessary? If so, it does sound like a point one could make, but it isn't a given.

Perhaps then, since life as we know it entails evil it is evil to make more of it. Then the widecast net might be correct, but it just encompasses the continuation of life, something people don't want to think about due to their preferences and such. — schopenhauer1

Well, my complaint was casting too wide of a net by equating suffering and evil. The solution you are offering is broadening it and adding a specific implication. Then, supposing the emotional reaction to the implication; then explaining it.

If I'm thinking all suffering isn't the result of evil, then thinking all life which includes all suffering is somehow evil would require a contradictory logic I can't produce. I'd offer a narrowing down of the term which may still show creating more life is evil, but I don't know how.

Yes and No, it doesn't require the extremes you mentioned, but it does involve the variables. The GPS is adjusted for both. One for the distance to earth's gravity as well as the speed of the satellites. I think there is an implication of an ambient time. The shape and volume of space in the absence of mass and the effect on an object without any kinetic energy. Whatever that would be.

Yes, otherwise there will be an overabundance of inefficient firms in the marketplace; putting pressure on companies that do operate efficiently and pay fairly for their inputs. If minimum wage were truly unnecessary, then it would exist and no one would be making it. Full stop. But it is necessary because people that supply labor can be forced to accept below market value due to an inability to effectively negotiate against the better positioned buyer. It also prevents a race to the bottom where accepting greater suffering is a competitive edge in getting work.

My definition of Evil is “That Which Increases Suffering (in magnitude or in numbers) — Trey

The trouble this runs into is it equates two things. We know not all suffering can be the result of evil. It's a good starting point because it casts a wide net and captures the bulk of what we associate with evil. But, it applies to things that aren't evil and simply result in suffering.

If I'm walking around the house in the dark and catch my foot on the leg of chair. There is suffering, but no evil. So, suffering alone can not denote evil.

I don't really have a cohesive theory of evil. It seems like a tool for story telling. To be evil would require the empathy to understand the harm that's been inflicted and desire it. Most of what I think would be called evil by mistake are actions taken without empathy. They are morally wrong in many cases, but to truly capture evil it would have to be something like "causing suffering for the sake of suffering". Evil would have to be an end in itself.

I'm largely in agreement with your criticisms, but the phrase "I just know it" is an idiom. It's nonsensical to take it literally; with the exception of inductive certainty. Like, I know the sun will rise tomorrow because of the arrangement of the solar system and rotation of the planet.

Do you know things that are false? — Banno

I misread a book on cats once in such a way that I thought it said the sounds they make imitate human language. I took it in a specific sense to mean a cat in Italy or a cat in England would meow in such a way that the speech of the owner carried over into a cat accent. I told this with great interest to my former lady who repeated it to her entire family. The laughter that followed is one of my fondest memories. I have known things that were false, what is to make me believe that can no longer be the case?

I can of course answer my question with the likely; I never really knew it, it was an imaginary experience like knowing the contents of a dream. But, this implies there is another special type of knowing where the world some how involves itself in our minds. It's easily demonstrated by observing obvious things that could almost never suffer from interpretation. But, those are never things a person would claim to know outside of an ad-hoc demonstration of knowing things. Actual knowing often suffers imperfect references and conjecture with degrees of approximation that would never suggest the whole of knowledge is true.

Knowledge ought to be true if it's claimed to be known. I can acknowledge that much I guess.

No, over the thread. Just pointing out that absolutism has a non-cosmic variety, from which point of view correctness is absolutely achieved, and your notion of 'inherent error' is unnecessarily cosmic. — bongo fury

I don't have any reservations about achieving absolutely correct knowledge. The inherent error was more of a red herring; which arguably worked. Yes, we know plenty of things in fullest sense of the term.

Back in the olden days they called that one "marriage". I recommend go ahead getting that first one out of the way. 4 years max

To take the measurement example alone, lesson one in physics is dealing with errors. The bench is 10±0.9m long; the rock has a mass of 0.6±0.1kg, and so on. The error is part of what we know about the bench and the rock. — Banno

Precisely, the error in this context is a known error. It is like you say incorporated into our knowledge along with the rest of the information. Because we know it, we account for it and avoid mistakes in our knowledge.

What do we do about the unknown errors? They are incorporated in the same fashion, but unaccounted for and yet knowledge is some how maintained as true throughout as if they were known. It doesn't sound reasonable to assume known and unknown errors result in the same quality of knowledge. Nor, is it reasonable to imagine knowledge of this sort is some mislabeled outlier.

There's a compounding of issues in that post that detracts markedly from any benefit that might accrue from writing a reply. — Banno

I would call it an improvement. Generally, the matter has been tossed out based on having been wrongly concluded.

And that's the point of the approach I would promote: accurate and thoughtful use of language. — Banno

I'll reserve thoughtful for sentimental topics; accurate to the human experience or the preferred definition?

Good relativism is also about recognising that the absolutism only holds relative to the game, which can co-exist happily with other games.
Games can merge, of course, and then the relativity becomes complicated and might require loss of absolutism here and there. — bongo fury

Science is all about merging and reconciling and reformulating.. — bongo fury

So, you looked over the post and said; you know what would really clear up the confusion here. A rice heap paradox. I maintain the suspension of disbelief that one day a coherent thing will be said about language gaming.

it may make better sense to see the process as one of dropping or replacing or reforming whole systems of measurement that were perfectly (absolutely) stable games in their own terms, and with their own margins for error. — bongo fury

Granted, if we were having a discussion on measurement there is a more nuanced position that would be appropriate. I was attempting to demonstrate that even in the case of direct empirical contact we return without perfect data; as to imply that cases that are more inferential certainly carry a higher degree of plausible deviation in correspondence to the facts. If it holds true in the best possible case for the contrary then it is likely true in a typical case. I agree though it is an awkward way of using measurement error and arguably misleading.

(...shakes head and walks away) — Banno

Every measurement that has ever been taken since the beginning of measuring things has inherent error. If we can know things imperfectly, then it follows that part of what is known is false. Then, there is the problem of change. Suppose something is known by the classical definition and then it changes. Does something in the mind make this adjustment to maintain a mystical correspondence? Knowledge is either so limited by it's own definition that we can barely know anything or knowledge is imperfect like everything else humans ever did or will do.

It might turn out that 1+2 does not equal 3? Or that the Bishop does not stay on its original colour? Or even that the earth is not roughly spherical? — Banno

I don't think that's an accurate use of "might"; the number of times those ideas have not been falsified suggest they are unlikely to be an example of error that results from being subject to human error.

Then I don't agree. These are things we know. And I think you misunderstand the perspective I am taking here. Sure, you can make up any definition for "know" that you like. — Banno

I did not sense a consensus building in this regard. I'm very familiar with the perspective and why it's maintained. Well, here we agree. It seems to be the case people have "made up" a definition and failed to improve it.

So on your version you can know things that are not true. Fine. Time to shake my head and walk away. — Banno

Correction, in my version we must know things that are false, because it hinges on the existence of unknown errors. It is je ne sais quoi, "necessary"? I would prefer to sally forth, but as you see fit.

And you don’t end up with infinite regress if you decided beforehand what constitutes good justification. — khaled

I acknowledge your example is linguistically coherent, but generally we talk about justifying from a deductive point of view. What you are describing is induction and comes along with it's own bag of broken glass. Or if you rather, knowledge of the future isn't really a reasonable example for knowledge in the context of philosophical discussion. You are more than welcome to pursue it if you see otherwise, but it looks like the hard way.

You are correct it is a problem regarding Banno's defense of the JTB framework; in my bold assessment.

While I'm at it; what if all of space was made of tiny circles that expand and contract in the presence of matter causing gravity?

What's an example of a problem that occurs when one defines knowledge as a very high degree of justification? — khaled

Technically, you end up with an infinite regress always trying to justify the thing that justified. While we're at it. Knowledge can exist in a book with the author dead and no one alive even aware of it. So, go ahead and toss out belief too.

I finally thought of a new way to assail this beast of yours. We each have conflicting theories of knowledge and we each have examples of knowledge that we use as analogs when discussing it. It stands to reason that if one of us has an incorrect theory; then the example we use will not actually be knowledge but instead serve as evidence that merely suits our description.

Which is a better example of knowledge? General relativity or "the fact you are reading this"
Which one implies useful inquiry and what is merely the description of sub-conscious process?

Actual knowledge isn't manifest; rather it is produced through an inquiry and/or observations of trials.
If I went into a job interview and they asked me; What do you have knowledge of? Would I tell them the color of the shirt they are wearing; no it is ad-hoc to the degree of absurd.

Your bedrock position is on the use of the term and your example is not one. The example you provide of undeniable knowledge disproves that JTB naturally constructs knowledge; as we know it. The definition is so restrictive that it limits examples of knowledge to near obvious to plainly obvious things. Knowledge as it's used in common practice is not the set of obvious things. Knowledge is not a goat.

Do you know things that are false?
All I have done is to set out the consequences of answering "no" to that question. — Banno

Knowledge is the product of humans
All human products are subject to human error
Knowledge is subject to human error

Anything subject to error contains parts that are true and parts that are false.

Similar to mathematics, the system is set up to produce only true answers. But, believing the output is always true or without error wouldn't be reasonable because of the source of the work.

The act or state of knowing doesn't change based on whether what is known corresponds to the facts. The I think I thought I knew is a slight of hand to maintain an idealistic version of knowledge. Which is why you don't always believe people when they claim to know things.

I'm not disagreeing with Banno I just wanna know why he defines things that way. What benefit does it bring? — khaled

I'd conjecture it's the result of a flawed assumption that foundationalism is a workable model for reality. If knowledge was actually built from the ground up one true premise at a time it might be that way. But, it's not and the definition never changed. He's just repeating the technically "correct" answer for a couple thousand years definition from what I gather. It is arguably what people want when they seek knowledge. It's just not quite what they get.

The 'answer to the variance in the groups' is that an enormous majority of Americans are extremist lunatics who, incapable of admitting it to themselves, need to blame a third party. — StreetlightX

Excellent assertion. But, the particular direction of the extremist lunatics has been influenced. I don't dispute they can and will do bizarre things on their own. I'm not finger pointing to relieve blame. There is a substantial record and enough of it is common knowledge to make your dismissal seem awkward. Believe whatever, I didn't pull it out of thin air is my point.

Also, the idea that Russia is responsible for the insanity of American politics and not the fact that Americans are endogenously politically insane is hilarious. — StreetlightX

It's the answer to the variance in the groups. Mainstream reports of it in the news over the last couple days. The NY times did a pretty good documentary interviewing ex-KGB. It's documented at degree granting institutions. https://youtu.be/tR_6dibpDfo Operation InfeKtion: How Russia Perfected the Art of War | NYT Opinion

Any particular area you wanted to focus criticism on?
I can do the collective - covert fascism- but people get label adverse. The overarching notion that free thought is the same as corruption. The general bias thru out. The appeal to making emotional decisions. The combining atheist and sociological activist as cohesive group. Refer to it as overt tribalism as middle ground. Don't want to waste your time.

I suppose it's like this for some people. It seems to me that for many more, it's "I'm already in bad shape, exhausted and stressed out to the max, I dread what will happen if I add more strain". For such a person, if they choose to get vaccinated and end up with serious side effects, they will have noone to blame but themselves. Hardly a prospect that one looks forward to. — baker

Yeah, I wasn't thrilled about enduring the typical immune response from the second dose, but nothing happened. Same reason I dodged the flu shot for years. Not wanting to introduce a flu like experience to avoid one.

You've got a bit of vaccine hesitancy, anti-vax just cause, and the wingnuts that think they are being microchipped. I'm initially sympathetic to a degree of rational hesitation. The instinct of "I'm fine, why introduce perceived risk" is a rational decision made solely based on oneself. Unfortunately, it makes for a lousy group decision and once people acknowledge that pandemics are group activities; then some of them come around.

The worst are the ones that profit off of fear and build little media empires on BSing the public.

Personally, I've had two and my arm remained attached.

The dilemma of Kantian ethics (The murderer who wants to know the whereabouts of your friend): If you tell the truth, your friend dies (bad) and if you lie (bad). Either choice is bad. — TheMadFool

Pretty sure this is one of the most misunderstood talking points regarding Kant. Kant wouldn't suggest you have a duty to honesty with a murderer. The point is you aren't legally liable for telling the truth.

I wonder if I should report this thread and this site for not complying with the Biden Administration executive orders — InPitzotl

I think you're falling prey to Poe's Law. — InPitzotl

You said executive orders; which is a thing. Yes, I agree the OP well outside of the boundaries of reality, but that's where many stand at the moment. So, Poe's Law sort of doubles back on itself, because your sarcasm could just as easily been representative of a literal position of the day. But, thanks for the clarification.

↪Cheshire I don't see anything that supports your claims. — Banno

The link provided details the police powers reserved for the state and they include measures that restrict otherwise guaranteed rights. Which is why most of the Covid restrictions in the US were on a state by state basis by executive action of the respective governors. There isn't an explicit section on limiting speech regarding pandemics if that's what you mean, but there is plenty about the governments ability to act toward the ends of public health. One could imagine under the right conditions the government could curb misinformation.

So you can know something, and be wrong? But I thought you can’t know things that are false (from your about page) — khaled

Under this system you can know true things and mislabel false things as known. But, nothing mislabeled is known; only incorrectly claimed to be known. The definition is self-consistent it just doesn't really describe the human experience from the perspective of the knower. It's the definition of knowledge from the perspective of God basically. Which is a good bit of irony.

I wonder if I should report this thread and this site for not complying with the Biden Administration executive orders on freedom of speech restrictions. — InPitzotl

Do it. Where's a .gov link that supports the existence of anything you mentioned. Executive actions are part of the public record.

When politicians and their health officials can shut down entire industries, control the free flow of information, and rule by decree, it necessarily becomes a political issue. Authoritarianism isn’t the only way to educate and prepare the public for threats to public health, but our so-called liberal democracies have proven that they are willing to resort to such tactics. — NOS4A2

No, it becomes a political issue when the idiot president pretends it doesn't exist cause it makes him look bad. What you are mentioning are called legal issues covered by due process. The Right tried to do the same thing with civil rights after the world watched a man be murdered in the streets and it blew up in their face.

Might leave it at that. It kinda sums up the differences in our opinions neatly. Come back to me when you can see the distinction I've made. — Banno

Is an approximation knowledge? If its understood to not quite be true, but informative enough to be useful. Can't call it a belief, because it isn't believed to be the actual if it is a known approximation. Also, can't call it true if it is a known approximation. It is very justified though, considering it's the basis for every load bearing structure built to a code. But, under your definition it isn't "justified" as in the justified to be the truth. Much like the roof over your head, if you didn't know whether or not it would collapse you wouldn't be sitting where you are at the moment. I recommend always looking for cracks in that bit of knowledge.

It does not matter if it is effective or not. What matters is the ethics and politics of the situation, whether the state should determine what can and cannot be said, and so on. — NOS4A2

Well, we have a special situation where politicians tried to use a public health crisis as a political football. So, now we have a group whose political identity is tied to the denial of a pandemic. So, the suppression, if it can be called that, of inaccurate medical information is intertwined with political positions. The ethics of public health out weigh the ethics of politically driven misinformation. They could probably be quite a bit stricter and still pass based on the exceptions for Police Power to the ends of public health.

And I disagree. If the censorship is "not effective" then one isn't being censored; are they?

No need. It wasn't really straw man, but rather, a natural extension of the Chief Justice Marshal reasoning you put up and with which I agree. — James Riley

Ok, that's fair, I must have misattributed the context.

Yes. When is yelling "Vaccines aren't safe" when they are safe, the equivalent of yelling "Fire" in the theater when there is no fire? — James Riley

I don't recall making this strawman argument, so I don't think I'll be defending it. Really, the Feds have only complained publicly, they aren't shutting down social media. Social media has elected to censor and fact check; denying them the right to do so would be more of an infringement than the complaints made here. But, I'm bias, if it was my uneducated fever dreams being shut down, then I might have a different position.

You are projecting. Regardless of what narrative you put to it, it's true. — Lil

You are test driving racist speaking points under false pretense. IF anything I'm reflecting.

Hmm. Much as I wish it were true, I'm not seeing it. — Banno

Police power as defined by Chief Justice Marshall is certainly broad enough to counter the mass dissemination of false information during a pandemic. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/section-1/property-and-police-power

They're trying to take away our first amendment rights and they're claiming that the end justifies the means. — charles ferraro

The same document allows for it in cases of public health. If the censorship was effective I wouldn't keep hearing about censorship. Yet, it seems to get its ironic message across every hour of every day.

There's a reason we have the word "know" and use it sometimes rather than "belief". Mandating that we not do so decreases the power of English. — Banno

It's surely informative. If I bought a book from you titled knowledge I would anticipate anything I found in it to correspond to the facts, but if you wanted to guarantee it was free from unknown errors; I wouldn't expect to pay extra. Because your definition doesn't account for them to be there, so there removal must be costless.

And yet we know that this thread is in English. — Banno

And the earth goes around the sun, but one of them wasn't always so obvious.

I'm wondering if anyone out there has any insight and/or opinions on this topic. — dclements

The labor market aspect of the free market is still fairly broken in the US. Low wage people can't switch jobs without risking losing their job in the process of looking so they are exploited by the lack of mobility. The system is sustained as long as the products are being made by people who make a tenth of our minimum wage.

A planned market isn't really a thing anymore. Even in North Korea you see a literal open free street markets. It's like planning how all the trees would grow to make a forest. It's impractical at best.