...unconcerned with the “what there is”, rather I am concerned with what is done. — Ennui Elucidator

This is a good description of my thoughts in regard to truth.

The object is never accessible or knowable regardless of your metaphysics and so it isn’t helpful as anything besides a linguistic convenience to even make reference to it. — Ennui Elucidator

All language, thought, and conceptualization is "linguistic convenience to even make reference" to something.

Yes, you can detect intrinsic curvature on a sphere, even if it is not embedded in 3D space. Angles in a triangle won't sum up to 180 degrees. — SophistiCat

After the discussion yesterday, I thought about this subject a lot, asking myself questions. The article you linked answered them all. Good article. Thanks.

Just looked this up in Wikipedia:

The sum of the angles of a triangle on a sphere is 180°(1 + 4f), where f is the fraction of the sphere's surface that is enclosed by the triangle.

I think that means that the geometry of a triangle would depend on it's size. Not sure (at all).

what is a flat triangle on a round paper? — Winner568

Do you mean a three-dimensional spherical surface?

By furthering an idea of how a 2-dimensional flat-lander could realize how to calculate the hypotonus of a triangle. — Winner568

I don't have much experience at 3D geometry, but I don't think the flat-lander would be able to know that. I definitely might be wrong. She would measure the distance between the vertices of the triangle as straight lines. The Pythagorean Theorem would be the same as for a 2D surface. If she wanted to measure the length of the sides of the triangle on the sphere, she would need to calculate great circle lengths, which go through the center of the sphere. In order to do that, she would have to know the radius of the sphere. If I remember correctly, the sum of angles on a triangle drawn on a sphere is not 180 degrees.

I am really not sure this is true.

We had a nice example of it a while back when a poster posted a thread about ad hominems, asking questions about it. Some posters suggested some literature on the topic, for the OP's questions are readily addressed in it. But the OP refused to read that literature, and claimed that suggesting that they read that was an ad hominem. — baker

I believe I am the poster being referenced here. The thread was my "Ad Hominem, Ad Schominem," which I think was a good one. It ended two months ago. Here's a link to the place in the discussion where @baker had uncomplimentary things to say about me.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/558201

If Baker's thoughts about my lack of critical thinking skills were correct, which I don't think they were, they still would not be an example of the Dunning Kruger effect.

That would be metaphysics (rather than epistemology) and I don’t talk about such things. — Ennui Elucidator

Many, including me, include epistemology in metaphysics. It doesn't make sense for them to be separate. In my understanding, ontology and epistemology, what there is and how we know what there is, are inseparable.

we shouldn’t confuse acting as if for the sake of utility with either belief or argument. — Ennui Elucidator

I'm not sure, but maybe you're making the same argument I am from the other side. I'm saying knowledge is information we use to make decisions and act. It seems like you're saying there is no knowledge, just the decisions and acts themselves. Or maybe not.

not because we know that the Eiffel Tower is in Paris, but because our best information makes it far more likely to find it there (if at all) rather than New York. — Ennui Elucidator

Now you're just playing with language. Knowledge is provisionally verified information.

epistemological nihilism — Ennui Elucidator

I had never heard that term before. Thanks for the education.

epistemological nihilism makes the claim that no knowledge is possible while solipsism makes the claim that only one thing can be known. — Ennui Elucidator

Actually, for me, this is a more interesting entry into the subject of knowledge than the one in the OP. It highlights the issues I find most important. On the one hand, of course there is knowledge. Wait a second ..... See, I was just knowing that the capital of France is Paris. I guess your question is whether "valid knowledge" is a contradiction in terms. For me, that just brings us back to my contention that knowledge is inextricably tied up with decision making. Knowledge, truth, is a tool we use to make decisions and act. If I decide to go to the capital of France, I will definitely make my flight reservations to Paris and not Kabul.

Where in my writing did I make the claim that something can be known, let alone the claim that only one thing can be known or that the only knowable thing is that my mind exists? — Ennui Elucidator

I admit, when I first read your previous response to me, I thought your idea sounded like "I think therefore I am and that's all that is," which is pretty much solipsism. Your formulation sounds like solipsistic solipsism, or Solipsism^2. Nothing exists but me, and I don't exist either.

I long ago came to peace with the idea that non-referential indexicals and other tricks of language account for much of the problem of “my mind” and that my version of “mind” is both constructed and re-constructed so seamlessly that even if I conquered the idea that there was something to “I”, I’d hardly know what it is and would find that anything to be said about it is conjecture. — Ennui Elucidator

And yet, you talk about yourself all the time. In my formulation, the fact that you act on the basis that "I" is a meaningful phenomenon means that it is.

Really? In your life's experience women are the reasoners and welcome reason, more so or equally with men? — tim wood

Shhhhhh. I know sometimes it's hard for old folks to remember we shouldn't say everything we think out loud.

Aka woman-bane. — tim wood

Nothing like a little misogyny to lighten up the mood.

Whether a statement is a lie, is not determined by time or the objective truth of the matter asserted. It's a lie if the declarant thought it was a lie when stated. It's the subjective understanding of the declarant. One can be wrong and not have lied, or be a liar. One can state an objective truth but be a liar if they thought they were lying. — James Riley

Sometimes, when I disagree with my wife and she's pissed at me, she says "That's right, I'm a liar." I say, "No, you're just wrong."

The price of doubting everything is incoherence. — Banno

You're right. I overstated the case. In this case, that's a sin for someone who sometimes calls himself a pragmatist. I'll restate:

On a practical level, there is uncertainty in most of what we call facts. The important thing when making a decision is to understand the level of uncertainty and balance that with an understanding of the consequences of being wrong.

I don't hold the opinion that facts can be used pragmatically when needed, in case they are needed, and how they are needed. — Shawn

Ultimately, what value do facts and the truth have other than providing information to allow making effective decisions?

My problem is that I think my assent (provisional or otherwise) adds nothing to the conversation of “is true” because the state-of-affairs is what it is regardless. Do I believe “a fact is true”? Why invest so much emotion or mental energy? I’d go with, “Does acting as if appear to further my agenda more than acting as if not?” — Ennui Elucidator

I'm ok with some of this, although I take a more pragmatic, less cynical, view. It's not that I want to "further my agenda." It's that I need to make decisions and to do that effectively, I need a good understanding of the uncertainty of the information I am using.

Facts don’t matter, truth is meaningless, and belief is an aside. — Ennui Elucidator

This is not nihilism, it's solipsism. Not the same thing.

This is something I'm unsure of. Many users already stated that they consider facts to be true based out of necessity. You seem to be saying that facts are contingent on circumstances or situations that allow them to be true, am I reading you correctly? — Shawn

It is undeniable that there is uncertainty in everything we call a fact. No matter how well-established it is, it might turn out not to be true. I'm not talking about radical Cartesian uncertainty. I'm talking about common, regular old uncertainty. We always have to make our decisions based on imperfect knowledge. Which is the fundamental problem with JTB - justified true belief is talking about perfect knowledge, which doesn't exist. In every aspect of our lives we have to make decisions based on imperfect, uncertain knowledge.

Taking a somewhat different tack, here is one of my favorite quotes from Stephen Jay Gould:

In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'

Knowledge can only ever be provisional.

I'm not sure if that answers your question.

When does a fact establish itself as knowledge? — Shawn

Facts become knowledge when they are needed. When they are used. You can't know whether or not a piece of information has been adequately justified until you know what it will be used for. Until you know the consequences of being wrong. At that point - when you are making a decision about a future action, you have to determine whether or not you can use that information. When you decide you can, it is knowledge.

And welcome to the forum.

Seems to me you are equating abstraction with generalization. Are they the same thing? I don't think so, but I'm not sure.

I think the real generalization in your example is the chemist recognizing, based on his own and others' past experience that 1) sunlight can degrade chemical substances and 2) opaque containers can help prevent that degradation. I'm sure whatever decision was made wouldn't be made based on a single sample. There would certainly be a large enough number to allow a robust evaluation of performance, including statistics. They would probably try with several materials, levels of opacity, intensity of light, etc. They might also try to rule out other factors, e.g. temperature.

You are mistaken, again. Neither agitated nor angry, just not into wasting my time. You’ve decided not to engage and so mock instead, thats fine, it was amusing but inevitably boring. — DingoJones

You're kind of a nasty arguer, snotty and condescending. Insulting. I've looked at some of your other posts so I know it's not just with me. It's kind of your thing. So, yes. I mock you because 1) you deserve it and 2) being straight-up with you doesn't seem to work.

Solution - If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything. I'll do the same.

Aww. Geez. There you go getting all agitated and angry again. We should really stop having these discussions if they're going to upset you so much.

This discussion reminds me of Godwin's Law. It used to be a way to throw shade. — James Riley

This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that lead to the persecution of intellectuals in the Third Reich.

Yes, but I thought the point of Dunning Kruger was eaxh person’s assessment of their own capabilities, not your assenssmanr of their capabilities. — Joshs

The only way the D-K effect is meaningful is if a person's competence is a personal characteristic with some more or less independent existence.

how has your assessment of others skills been shaped by your own skill development? Before you learnt engineering or cabinetry , how might your judgement of others talents in those arenas differed? Would you disagree with the idea that how much you know influences your opinion on others’ abilities? — Joshs

Here is the T Clark theory of competence - The primary skill required for the development of competence is the ability to recognize high quality endeavor. If you don't know it when you see it, you can't do it right. That ability is (can be?) a non-subject-specific skill, i.e. it is (may be?) possible to recognize competence as such without detailed knowledge of the subject matter.

All of that was noted and rebutted in my initial comment. — DingoJones

Nunh unh.

I never offered an estimation of your motives for your opinion — DingoJones

This is a flat out falsehood. I quote:

its a cherished opportunity to push back with some sort of disdain for psych terms — DingoJones

All in all, I think my response was much cleverer than yours. Did you notice how I accused you of being subject to the D-K effect - twice - but I did it just using plain language. I-R-O-N-Y!!! In your face!!

But why develop cognition sufficient enough to conceive of ideas of “free will”, “agency” and “purpose” — Benj96

I already explained it. It's just because.

But what is it for? — Benj96

The underlying, absolutely radical, meaning of "Origin of Species" is that life, evolution, and, by extension everything else, are not for anything. There is no meaning or purpose for anything. No "why." We tend to find living things particularly interesting, but that's just an artifact of the particular way the matter and energy that make us up interact.

So - just because.

Just because it is a term abused by some doesn't mean the concept is bullshit. — DingoJones

It is bullshit because 1) it is often, usually, used to add a patina of reason to a poorly-thought-through criticism. 2) Many people who use the term don't even know what it means. 3) The prime sign of jargon - the term's meaning can be easily and clearly, more clearly, expressed in everyday language.

So I find your criticism weak, and it has the wiff of prejudice, like its a cherished opportunity to push back with some sort of disdain for psych terms or something. — DingoJones

I think, perhaps, you overestimate your own ability to understand the motives for my opinion, which, by the way, are not relevant to my argument and shouldn't be part of your response. So, maybe, you also overestimate your ability to reason effectively.

But what if the supposed objective ‘fact’ of ability on which the effect is based is nothing but an abstracted average derived from the real individual variability in self-assessment? — Joshs

This is baloney. I was an engineer for 30 years. Before that, I was a cabinetmaker for 10. I knew who was good at what they did and who was not. It's not hard to tell. Competence is very important to me. My one goal in life has been to be competent at something that provides concrete value to people. When you work with someone who knows what they're talking about and what they're doing, it shines like a star. If you know what you're doing, you can see it in them, hear it, feel it, even if you're not familiar with the subject.

I'm not sure if this is directly relevant, but I love it, so here it is. Emerson, "Compensation."

Labor is watched over by the same pitiless laws. Cheapest, say the prudent, is the dearest labor. What we buy in a broom, a mat, a wagon, a knife, is some application of good sense to a common want. It is best to pay in your land a skilful gardener, or to buy good sense applied to gardening; in your sailor, good sense applied to navigation; in the house, good sense applied to cooking, sewing, serving; in your agent, good sense applied to accounts and affairs. So do you multiply your presence, or spread yourself throughout your estate.

But because of the dual constitution of things, in labor as in life there can be no cheating. The thief steals from himself. The swindler swindles himself. For the real price of labor is knowledge and virtue, whereof wealth and credit are signs. These signs, like paper money, may be counterfeited or stolen, but that which they represent, namely, knowledge and virtue, cannot be counterfeited or stolen. These ends of labor cannot be answered but by real exertions of the mind, and in obedience to pure motives. The cheat, the defaulter, the gambler, cannot extort the knowledge of material and moral nature which his honest care and pains yield to the operative. The law of nature is, Do the thing, and you shall have the power: but they who do not the thing have not the power.

I suspect everyone, or most, "suffer" from Dunning Kruger. — Yohan

"Dunning Kruger" is just another example of bullshit jargon replacing focused thought, just like the logical fallacy fallacies. It's just another way of saying "I think you're wrong," or "You don't know what you're talking about," while giving the appearance of insight. People here use it as a stick to beat people with instead of just saying what they mean. Often it is used as an ad hominem argument rather than something substantive.

There are endless debates on this forum about justified true belief, sometimes it's hard to judge what makes it such an elusive topic. — Wayfarer

I whine and complain about the needless tangle of words with which western philosophy ties up important philosophical issues. None is sillier or more misleading than justified true belief. I have been accused of being a pragmatist, someone who believes that philosophy has to reflect how people live their lives and make decisions. I also believe that epistemology has to be constrained by human nature. JTB ignores both of these principles completely.

Ok, ok. Sorry. I promised myself I wouldn't let my comments lead into a discussion of this issue, which isn't really relevant to the subject in the OP.

How can this be achieved? Am I even right that the couple is still happy? Is there a couple at all? — Prishon

To the extent that it exists, the source of the separation of church and state in the US is from the First Amendment to the Constitution, in particular "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Added to that are the interpretations and decisions the courts have made since the Constitution was approved.

How would that work with science? Answer - it wouldn't. "Science" is much harder to define than "religion." Does that mean that no agency with specific scientific goals would be allowed? No CDC. No NASA. No FDA. No NOA, NSCS, NGS, NSF....

The way I see it JTB is more like a Stoic idea and is not the best approach to understand Socrates and Plato. — Apollodorus

Does anyone still think that JTB is a useful way of thinking about knowledge?

Thanks.

Sometimes, when you see a very good person with a great soul making laborious acts to help people, he or she ends up cheated or disappointed of how ungrateful the people can be. — javi2541997

True generosity is not performed with the expectation of gratitude. Which is not to say that showing gratitude is not important. It is.

Although there are no doubt some folk who give to demonstrate piety or get a tax advantage. — Tom Storm

There's no reason people can't have more than one reason for the things they do.

On what specifically? — 180 Proof

The difference between an exemplar and an avatar..

And knowing it’s right makes us feel good — Benj96

Not if it's truly from the heart. Lao Tzu:

Therefore the sage is devoted to non action, Moves without teaching,
Creates ten thousand things without instruction, Lives but does not own, Acts but does not presume,
Accomplishes without taking credit. When no credit is taken, Accomplishment endures.

Aldiss and Lombardo translation of Tao Te Ching.

an exemplar, but not an avatar — 180 Proof

Expand a little please.

Both parties gain a personal sense of satisfaction from their actions. — Benj96

That's not the point of generosity, or any action from the heart. The point is to help other people, whom we care for as members of our community, however we want to define that. People like each other. We care about each other. We don't do it because it makes us feel good. We do it because we know it's right.

As once I said, ideas enslave as much as they emancipate. — TheMadFool

In a sense, that is the message of Taoism.

Good point. This reminds one of the court jesters of European aristocrats and kings. — Apollodorus

Don't misinterpret the fool/ignorance theme. The fool really did see things others didn't because he wasn't tied to the accepted creed. Fools were often cripples who were looked down on and ridiculed. They were also the only ones who could dare to confront the King because no one respected them or their ideas and they were comedians. It is my understanding that being a fool was a dangerous profession.

The theme of ignorance in the Tao Te Ching sometimes described an active rejection or surrender of knowledge in order to see a deeper truth. I'm haven't read a lot of Greek philosophers, but I wouldn't be surprised if that is what Socrates was talking about. After all, like some fools, he was put to death. Does that make sense in context:

Did Socrates really “know nothing”? — Apollodorus

The idea of a sage as ignorant or a fool is a common one. Lao Tzu includes several instances in the Tao Te Ching:

Verse 19

Eliminate sagacity (sheng), discard knowledge,
People will be profited a hundredfold...
Look to the undyed silk, hold on to the uncarved wood,
Reduce your sense of self (szu) and lessen your desires.

Verse 71

From knowing to not knowing
This is superior.
From not knowing to knowing,
This is sickness.

Verse 81

Truthful words (yen) are not beautiful,
Beautiful words are not truthful.
The good does not distinguish,
One who distinguishes is not good.
One who knows does not accumulate knowledge,
One who accumulates knowledge does not know.

Ellen Marie Chen translations.