If aliens exist then nobody can know that aliens don't exist. If aliens don't exist then nobody can know that aliens exist. It's very simple. — Michael

It is very simple for me to point out that WE DON’T KNOW EITHER WAY. Speculation about the actual existence of extra terrestrial beings is just that. I possess knowledge that seems to suggest to me that such beings do exist but I don’t actually know one way or the other.

So if something is ‘justified’ it is ‘true’? Do you believe that people who believe they are justified to claim something as true are only justified by how you depict what is true?

This isn’t rocket science. We cannot know what is true without preset parameters and rules. The universe is not something we have complete knowledge of therefore its ‘rules and parameters’ are unknown so our justification for any truth (outside the abstract) is open to varying degrees of doubt. We have ‘justification’ for beliefs when we can apply logic and reason (abstract tools) that adumbrate some supposed ‘truth’.

From here it doesn’t take much of a leap to understand that people with varying experiences and understandings may arrive at different conclusions as to what is or isn’t considered ‘knowledge’ because they are not privy to every possible perspective or the full comprehension of the manner in which nature operates.

JTB as a definition of ‘knowledge’ is open to personal interpretation (it is a subjective definition of knowledge because two different people could dispute what is or is not ‘true’ by way of how they ‘justify’ said claim.

Perhaps drop that extreme example and deal with something more subtle then. The problem is still there.

I’m confused? Why are you missing/avoiding my point.

What you and I may deem to be an obvious and proven truth today may turn out to be partially/completely wrong in several generations. We are not privy to the machinations of the universe merely part of them. We can interpret our minuscule corner reasonably well, or so we believe … which is my point.

The abstract does not match reality. So iff P then S is merely an abstract fact that can help guide us in reality but it sure as hell is not reality.

It appears we merely mark out the kind of ‘truth’ you are talking about by approximating it with abstract knowledge. Just because from some individual perspective we’re lined up with some abstract truth that correlates with reality it does not make it true in any absolute sense. Truth in reality is always our best educated guess backed up by evidence we also believe to be worthy. We cannot know anything with certainty unless we are limiting it and applying strict rules (eg. Playing Chess).

If we have no knowledge of the rules of chess and watched several hundred games could we say with 100% certainty that we understand ALL the rules of the game. Absolutely not. We would probably believe that we have enough experience to play the game well enough though. If we never saw what happens to a pawn once it reaches the other side of the board do we truly understand all the rules of chess? No. Are we justified by watching several games to assume we do understand all the rules of chess? No, but if we had to reach a conclusion with what we’d observed we might well say ‘now I know how to play chess’.

Reality, unlike chess, does not possess a handy rulebook and nor do we have access to the entire board. To state that this rule is ‘true’ or ‘false’ based on a limited scope is just referential to the idea that there is a ‘True’ and a ‘False’ not evidence that there is - in reality - a ‘True’ or ‘False’ other than that which we make via abstraction and strictly defined boundaries we imagine.

No. This was an extreme example put forward for impact. They most certainly do have Justification or why would they believe that the Earth is flat?

My point here being is that people may have different reasons to consider different pieces of evidence. It is hard for me to imagine that the Earth is flat but at a glance we cannot generally ‘see’ that there is curvature to the Earth. We are in a position to say that this is false now but if we lived in the hills and had never seen the ocean nor knew of space and the heavenly bodies much would we view it as ‘True’ that the Earth was flat.

This is not the same as saying scientific knowledge has moved in from Newtonian motion to the theory of Relativity. Newton was just less accurate. I have no direct knowledge other than belief in an abstract system that does a damn good job of modelling the world.

My trust is based in mathematics not my ability to do mathematics accurately.

Do you not see that there are lines between what one person would claim as ‘good evidence’ and state something as ‘true’ where others would disagree and hasten to show them otherwise ..l like right now with me making as plain and clear as I can that what is considered ‘true’ in the lived world is open to some degree of doubt - where 1+2=3 is arithmetically correct and holds to a set of rules made by humans and understood universally. I do not ‘believe’ 1+2=3 I know it (but I know it as an abstract fact not as a reality as my scope for what the universe contains is limited and I have no idea if their are constant ‘rules’ and/or how many there are if there are any that I could comprehend.

JTB can function if Ockham is brought in. Which would basically make the whole JTB idea reliant upon another kind if ‘hedge your bets’ version of what ‘knowledge’ is.

Because it is true for those that believe it. Look at how the T is used in the definition - we are not able to say what is or is not true outside of abstractions. We cannot say some element of reality is true only that we have evidence that suggests it is true, hence:

Knowledge is a kind of relationship with the truth—to know something is to have a certain kind of access to a fact

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#KnowJustTrueBeli

What we call true is based on the justification for it being true (evidence). So outside of abstract contents we are limited and do not have access to ALL information (we are not omnipotent).

Everything in life is a JB and in abstraction we can have JTB if we can handle the size of the data set and fully understand the rules.

You continue to misunderstand. Flatearthers do not have knowledge that the Earth is a disc, because it is not true that the Earth is a disc. — Janus

I understand perfectly well. You do not.

Get it?

If it turns out that we never have justification to believe anything, then we never have knowledge, but just belief. The definition of knowledge as JTB remains untouched in any case. — Janus

Flatearther have 'knowledge' that the Earth is a disc then. If that is how we're defining 'knowledge' in JTB you can have it.

The problem with the Justification you outline shows that what is referred to as 'knowledge' is PURELY subjective according to how you put JTB.

Holding to the JTB definition of knowledge is what people with opinions do as it doesn't require proof or truth, merely a connection to something that could be true due to some evidence.

Humans are fallible. The point of 'knowledge' (correct me if I'm wrong) is to counter our fallibility. Therefore it is nonsense to frame 'knowledge' as something defined by the whim of an individual human. An annoying paradox only resolved by the use of abstract 'knowledge' (knowledge confined to certain universal parameters).

The term ‘I’ is merely the verbal projection of yourself amongst other selves.

Such language as this (being used here) can be used in a way that seems cut off from any ‘other’ but in all seriousness this is an impossibility as we cannot actively use such language completely independent from how it has come to establish itself (ie. communication among and between persons).

Self has specific meanings specific psychological theories.

Language, and the terms used therein, are ‘actions’. The term ‘I’ is an action of referring to something just like ‘walking’ is the act of marking out another action (walking) without necessarily doing said action.

There are so many ways to get lost within terms. Be careful.

Magick is - in simple terms - a kind of self-hypnosis. It is more about psychology and getting people to believe that there is some Actual ‘Magick’ whilst also being able to flip your own belief and confidence in the system/s.

All religious institutes rely, or have relied, on such uses of ‘Magick’.

The term 'true' is used in a certain context though:

1.1 The Truth Condition
Most epistemologists have found it overwhelmingly plausible that what is false cannot be known. For example, Hillary Clinton did not win the 2016 US Presidential election. Consequently, nobody knows that Hillary Clinton won the election. One can only know things that are true.

Sometimes when people are very confident of something that turns out to be wrong, we use the word “knows” to describe their situation. Many people expected Clinton to win the election. Speaking loosely, one might even say that many people “knew” that Clinton would win the election—until she lost. Hazlett (2010) argues on the basis of data like this that “knows” is not a factive verb.[2] Hazlett’s diagnosis is deeply controversial; most epistemologists will treat sentences like “I knew that Clinton was going to win” as a kind of exaggeration—as not literally true.

Something’s truth does not require that anyone can know or prove that it is true. Not all truths are established truths. If you flip a coin and never check how it landed, it may be true that it landed heads, even if nobody has any way to tell. Truth is a metaphysical, as opposed to epistemological, notion: truth is a matter of how things are, not how they can be shown to be. So when we say that only true things can be known, we’re not (yet) saying anything about how anyone can access the truth. As we’ll see, the other conditions have important roles to play here. Knowledge is a kind of relationship with the truth—to know something is to have a certain kind of access to a fact

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#KnowJustTrueBeli

I think there point is that the bartender is Justified to Believe this as True because the document is convincing enough and the age of the person questionable enough to warrant their position as 'correct'.

That the person's age is under 18 in reality seems to be of little concern to the definition of knowledge - knowledge can be faulty.

That is the only way I can make sense of what they are saying here.

it's just a definition of knowledge. — Janus

It is a poor one if many people view it differently though, right?

There is considerable disagreement among epistemologists concerning what the relevant sort of justification here consists in.

It is worth noting that one might distinguish between two importantly different notions of justification, standardly referred to as “propositional justification” and “doxastic justification”.

The precise relation between propositional and doxastic justification is subject to controversy, but it is uncontroversial that the two notions can come apart.

Something’s truth does not require that anyone can know or prove that it is true.

Knowledge is a kind of relationship with the truth—to know something is to have a certain kind of access to a fact.

The belief condition is only slightly more controversial than the truth condition. The general idea behind the belief condition is that you can only know what you believe. Failing to believe something precludes knowing it.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#KnowJustTrueBeli

If JTB says that Flatearthers are justified in their belief and that their belief in the Earth being a disc rather than a spherical object is 'knowledge' then knowledge looks to be pretty useless. If someone says they have some knowledge about something why should I take them seriously?

JTB may as well say that everything we experience is 'knowledge'. Well, so what?

I have a definition equally as good. Anything anyone pays any attention to they have knowledge of. Nothing to do with truth or justification needed. We recognise something and question it in some manner. That is where knowledge is born.

Breathing is not something I usually have any knowledge of unless I am directly paying attention to it, questioning it and/or studying it. Generally speaking though my day-to-day life is not taken up by holding knowledge of breathing up for conscious scrutiny. If you keep following this definition of knowledge compared to JTB it has more legs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba-HMvDn_vU

If we're going for analogies I think it is better to view the Brain as Language/Subject and the Mind as a Conversation/Narrative.

If JTB supports a claim about reality then it is a poor definition of knowledge? Is that why people are arguing here?

Given that our understanding of reality is incomplete we are not exactly able to know everything so there are necessarily beliefs we have now that we say are justified true beliefs but reality does not hold up to them - we’re just ignorant.

We only have irrefutable knowledge when we set limits and rules (in abstraction like mathematics). Errors can still lead to false claim of knowledge though.

The whole point of Gettier is to point out that people can get the right answers for the wrong reasons. Giving a correct answer does not mean you hold knowledge about the subject the question was framed in.

Why is this so hard for some of you to grasp? Did I miss something?

One cannot gain any position of power unless one is at least to some extent corrupt by the principles of official morality. — baker

Because?

Also, what are the ‘principles of official morality’?

I guess you take what I meant as living in a city and begging or something?

It is actually possible to live off the land - our ancestors were this kind of 'parasite'. Of course I wasn't suggesting it would be easy or that everyone has the knowhow how to become more self-sufficient.

I have spotted that a great number of people won't take such a freedom as it requires a lot of hard work and a complete change in lifestyle. It can be done it is just that neither of us are sufficiently willing to do it.

What you say here makes sense yet it seems in opposition to your remark:

I haven't known many people who are willing to work hard to get what they want; not physically and not mentally. I have known a great many that want to win the lottery, would like a giant inheritance, etc. but work for it? Damned few. I would suggest that the system we are in is less flawed than we like to think. The players are flawed perhaps more than the system. — Book273

This as a comment to what you said:

Nobody gets to where they are by being nice. The higher they rise, the bloodier their history. It's a rat race, dog eat dog. — TheMadFool

Was just pointing to you because MadFool seemed to interpret what you said as meaning/conveying something you wouldn’t side with wholeheartedly - which you confirmed.

Mad does seem to be talking mainly about dictators though.

If there was no corruption in politics they’d be no need for politics.

@Tom Storm Nonsense. In any enterprise corruption equates to its degradation.

Gangsters are gangsters. Politicians are politicians. Feel free to make a joke about that, but in all seriousness there is a danger in equating them as identical in every respect. You can have noble and principled gangsters just as you can have noble and principled politicians - the ‘bad’ lives in every nook and cranny of humanity.

Why does it have to be ‘power’ that corrupts and nothing else? Why does everyone jump on this little saying as if it is empirically true?

Has anyone attempted to suggest that a deficiency in power corrupts too? Could it just be that power makes corruption more visible as those corrupt individuals with little to no power are not exactly prominent.

Maybe it is just viewing the world and humans as simplistic that causes corruption (like holding to the opinion that one item is responsible for one outcome).

Tyrannical people punish people for doing well.

The scout master is a tyrant.

Your belief that Gettier is wrong :razz:

Politics: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/27/world/asia/china-doctor-strange-tibet.html

Looks like China said NO to a mention of 'Tibet'. Not surprising considering they have enough clout to ban movies and cut the revenue for said movie/s by millions of dollars.

btw what about the China propaganda machine. I did hear rumours they were paying video games and movies to portray people who look Chinese as benevolent people.

It is clear to see how the US has tried its arm at anti-Russian sentiments for a long long time too. These things do bleed over into the mainstream for sure.

Celtic culture replaces an Asian character, with Asian culture — Tom Storm

Celtic culture? Did I not pay attention in the film enough to notice "celtic" mythos?

Personally I found it difficult to accept Sherlock Holmes as a CGI sorcerer. — Tom Storm

XD

Silence. It was an obvious statement. Casting is not necessarily all about race and sex. Sometimes, although not always, people are cast because they are good.

I find that hard to question or add a 'perhaps' as if it is somehow contentious.

It is a problem if they feel intimidated into casting, or not casting, someone based on others ideas of race/sex or whatever.

You cannot please everyone.

I would find it interesting if there was a drama made about race/sex relations where all the actors played their visual opposites. I am kind of surprised it hasn't happened yet because they'd be SO much media attention on such a film that it'd sell out instantly :D

It appears we've both misread each other. — TheMadFool

We wouldn't be here if that wasn't almost always the case in almost every situation :)

Never say always but also, never say never. Oops! That's what reality does to you. — TheMadFool

The 'perhaps' still looks misplaced to me.

By saying you are not sure about something being unsure means you think it is either black or white.

If you misread you misread. Look ...

So, no. It is not necessarily racist or sexist to cast someone for a role in a film.
— I like sushi

Perhaps. At least the Ancient One was in Kathmandu :lol: and not in New York. Wait "she" comes to New York. :roll: — TheMadFool

So you are saying that perhaps it has to be about racism and/or sexism rather than sometimes being about racism and/or sexism.

Looking at your other response I guess you are stating that perhaps being 'sexist'/'racist' is a natural state of affairs. I don't think so. I would say 'sexism'/'racism' is political language that is taught. I think something vaguely along the line of broad 'tribalism' could have more of an inbuilt aspect in terms of fear of the unknown and evolutionary survival (but that is mostly speculation).

So I disagree. If however you misread or mean something else tell me.

According to you. You seem insistent to view this as a decision made on race rather than on their view of the actor.

None of this is me saying it wasn't a conscious choice. Perhaps at the back of their mind they thought it was also a bonus to cast her as it would give the film some extra publicity knowing that some folks are always looking for controversy (genuine or otherwise simply to sell articles or make a name for themselves).

Perhaps. — TheMadFool

Saying 'not necessarily' is not the same as saying 'not at all necessary'. You must've misread.

Hence why I said "it can be though". To look at every choice as character as a decision made purely on race - unless that is the subject matter of the production - seems silly.

As for the casting someone asian as an ancient martial arts master ... well, yeah. Why wouldn't you considering that in asia there is an established and long held tradition in the martial arts? It does seem strange (excuse the pun) that they when for a woman, but it may just have been because she applied for the job, did a good job and so they hired her.

I would be surprised if they only asked white women to attend the casting. It could also have been that they didn't ask anyone else and someone enjoyed her work and had a vision for the movie?

So, no. It is not necessarily racist or sexist to cast someone for a role in a film.

there is no such thing as race — tim wood

Scientifically there isn't. Sadly old ideas have mostly died out but the terminology carried on. 'Race' is effectively a cultural phenomenon. In terms of genetics there are differences between broad groups but such differences go far beyond outward appearances.

Between ethic groups that have some slight genetic distinctions there is little difference compared to within the group - which automatically dismisses the idea of a humans being of scientifically distinct 'races'. This is actually important when it comes to diagnosing diseases and conditions more prevalent in some groups more than others, yet the stigma attached to this whole area makes people feel dread and fear.

Strangely enough on a science forum when I posted about scientists having to take a more proactive role in combatting misconceptions of 'race' due to faulty archaic pseudo science and a lack of spokespersons in this area they practically all announced that 'race' doesn't exist even though I pointed out that they have a boxes on forms where they ask people their race so it does have a place in society outside the scope of the hard sciences.

The social sciences are extremely flimsy and many core scientists (physicists and such) are not exactly sure it should even be called a 'science' (and in universities it isn't classed as a 'Science' it is under the category of 'Humanities and Arts').

It's not. It can be though. People can be many things.

In art there artist license. Some may choose one way to do something whilst another another. Some will prefer one way to the other. I would caution confusing discrimination with taste, or taste with discrimination - especially when others wish to stir things up and sell articles and/or force a political ideology in against the intent of the artistic/creative endeavor.

But well, maybe in the US they construct it through provocation, but with their strict felony murder rule I think you would be hard pressed as a lawyer when you are on the rapist's team. — Tobias

That was my point. I don’t know exact ins and outs and it seems to vary from state to state.

I was simply stating in regards to the hypothetical.

It seems obvious that in the act of committing a violent act, you have no right to defense from others trying to stop your violent act. — Harry Hindu

Laws and interpretations of the law vary from place to place.

The fact that this example is being used in a thread which has nothing to do with the Rittenhouse case or circumstances is an example of a red herring. — Harry Hindu

Possibly? Don’t know. Just stating what I have picked up from Rittenhouse case about how ‘provocation’ plays into how people are charged/convicted from state to state.

If the rapist is killed it would be manslaughter. If the rapist kills the husband I think you can define that as 'provocation' (raping his wife) so claims to self-defense would be very hard to call but I am sure there are some other mitigating circumstances (convoluted even!) that could warrant a claim of 'self-defense' - state depending if we're talking about US in general here.

You immediately end the conversation to question this necessity of life or life itself by saying it’s juvenile. — schopenhauer1

Call me slow but just realised this is framed as an extension from antinatalism. I am not saying antinatalism is 'juvenile' (as an intellectual position). I think it has numerous holes in that I argued with the same sake who posted in these forums about it. It was a good discussion and we both agreed to disagree. I have called it ridiculous and another things I'm sure to try and get to the bottom of what the other person meant.

My point was simply that in youth we are not made to hold many responsibilities. In youth we generally have it easy because we don't see the work involved to allow us to live in such a way. Clearly some people are burdened with more responsibility than others - parent shoulder the burden of providing necessities due to human's extended infantile and juvenile states compared to other species.

This thread looked like something else. This thread I thought was focused mainly on ways to reduce working hours.

You mentioned Marx so I thought it worth pointing out that if we're reducing hours then surely we're reducing pay if we're talking about the very same job - unless the person could do the same amount of work in 3 hrs that they could in 5 hrs?

If you are saying it is 'necessary' to earn a wage then this isn't exactly true. You don't have to it is just that you have to learn how not to earn a salary and live by other means - becoming completely self-sufficient. But you would still be 'working' just not earning a wage. It would be difficult to fit this into most societies so you'd have to give up the benefits of a 'wage living society' in favour of another (or convince everyone else your way is better).

Often enough people either don't realise what freedom they have by disbelief or fear. I know I fear the realisation of the degree of my freedom very often as I know with freedom comes responsibility. I can try and inform people but generally there are types of people at points in their life that simply won't listen (due to disbelief/fear). We all suffer from a lack of conviction, but there is something to gain in caution too ... there doesn't appear to be a one-size-fits-all solution but there can be improvements made to try and communicate and understand and this will, so it seems to me, at least lessen the number of phantoms that can stand in the way of us becoming whatever it is we're to become. Of course the fatalists will mock such an attitude but they only do so because they don't believe they can do otherwise :)

So it was just bait? You were baiting me.

Why?

If work is necessary to survive and you don't want to work then you want to die? Okay. I kind of enjoy work. Work isn't exactly always a 'chore' so to speak. Like here and now writing this - although I'm not exactly getting paid for it but it is at least honing a skill little by little.

Trying to explain things is basically the best way to understand them I would say. Even if you make a hash of it you can at least build on your next attempt.

I really don't see how talking about the physics definition of 'work' fits into this specific topic?