I don’t really think it matters if people are ‘equal’ or not.

The guiding principle should be to treat each other as if we are all capable of something in some capacity and therefore view humans as potentially being better and making themselves and others better.

Equality in this sense has nothing to do with abilities or personal resources. Equality is simply about respecting fellow humans and making the most of what we have and learning about our own inadequacies so as not too often overreach or cause undue harm within our immediate sphere - and accepting and being responsible as we’ll fail in our youthful years repeatedly.

A colony on The Moon would make little sense given that humans cannot create artificial gravity. A base to jump off from makes sense, but I would see it as automated not run by humans as they couldn’t stay there for long periods (years) without a lot of difficulty. That said, the proximity to Earth would be a huge advantage over Mars. Also, I imagine some adventurous types would be thrilled to colonise The Moon too, so a preliminary base would make sense. The goal of Mars is uncharted territory but I expect - as Musk plans - they’ll be some kind of Moonbase that will test out some of the tech to be used on Mars and this will be the launchpad to get to Mars.

Mars has to colonised. I’m saddened someone hasn’t landed on Mars already as I expected it to have happened by now. Now there are private companies around competing it is only a matter of time. Elon Musk seems 100% driven towards getting to Mars and everything he does is based on this goal. As long as he says alive I think we’ll be there soon enough.

For longterm stability and independence Mars has much more going for it purely due to the gravity. Most of the first colonists will likely die/suffer a lot, but many (including myself) would happily take the risk. Should we go? Sure! Why the hell not? What good reason is there not to explore and stretch the human story to see what can be achieved? Every adventure opens up new avenues for humanity as a whole.

I still believe I’ll live long enough to see humans land on Mars (or at least attempt to!).

The filthy shit covered face of patriotism.

Prioritise the qualities of the candidate over the policies of the party. — unenlightened

No thanks! The UK does not want to fall further into US popularism. The greatest benefit of the system in the UK is that people care about the policies and expect parties to present their plans in plain language. One of the main failings of the US system is the complete lack of policies and/or any cohesive plan.

I have always found it shocking that in the US ‘candidates’ can just use empty rhetoric without even the slightest attempt to show any plans or implementation of said plans.

Looks grim for him atm

I give up.

And do we know the rules of the game of life? Chess is an abstracted and bounded category not an unknown quantity. There is a difference between abstracted truth and applying truth to reality right?

So it is a justified belief NOT a justified true belief (it cannot be as they are never privy to the exact rules of some said game).

The 'game' in question here is reality at large too. None of us know the rules or limits. JTB only has scope within set parameters NOT in reality as it fails to distinguish where the borders of use are and is an attempt to use abstraction in reality as some absolute rule declaring what is or is not truth (but such truths are subject to change depending on the community and subjective intents).

Whether or not the Earth is flat is not an abstract concept. Whether or not the Earth is flat "exists" in reality. Whether or not the Earth is flat is independent on what anyone believes. — Michael

Yes ... I point being that JTB only works with abstractions. JTB framed as a definition of day-to-day 'knowledge' about historical facts and such is nonsense.

Using an abstract formula as evidence of something being True in reality only has limited Justification. There is no distinct line between these.

I noticed you avoided commenting about the Chess game analogy? Are you saying that someone, in the real world, can know (with certainty) what the rules of a game are without ever being told what the rules are? That makes no sense at all. I can certainly agree that if they observed people playing the game multiple times they would have a better idea what the rules were but I see no way how they could state with absolute certainty that they knew ALL the rules. Granted, if the game was simple and there were only a few possible 'moves' in the game then they would feel more and more confident with each viewing ... and therein lies the problem of how humans operate. We believe when it suits us and frame beliefs as certainties when it suits our fragile understanding even in the face of facts that show otherwise.

This is part of the reason why flatearthers exist and part of the reason why people laughed with incredulity at Galileo for disputing what Aristotle said, because people will believe what they believe as true and some will not even budge once you show them they are wrong.

The whole JTB nonsense is stuck because it openly ignores the distinction between facts and truths.

But that doesn’t make them true. Truth is not, as far as we know, existent in reality. It is an abstract concept.

Btw I think there is more justification in the belief for aliens existing than not. It would be surprising if the Earth was the only planet in the entire universe to ever harbour life.

There a many cosmologists and xenobiologist who’d likely agree with me … it is NOT true though as far as we know. Discovering aliens would make it ‘true’ but I doubt everyone would believe it as some will not see past their beliefs.

What we believe often trumps reality. We are not robots. Facts and truths are not synonymous. You appear to be talking about facts rather than what is true.

Because, arguably, none of our beliefs are justified, and so the second condition isn't met. — Michael

That is my point. They are ONLY met in abstraction. That is not the claim of JTB though as it is applied to real life where limits and rules are unknown to us.

I also believe the Earth is spherical rather than a disc because I believe in science and personal experience (watching ships dip over the horizon). I have never been into space though to see for myself. I cannot say with utter and complete certainty that anything I hold to be ‘true’ in reality to actually be True because I immediately have the ability to doubt that which I bring into conscious attention. That is why I use my own definition of knowledge not JTB which is little more than the kind of games and word play used by lawyers - no thanks.

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