The former is about my state of mind, the latter about the state of the world. — Isaac

Then we can understand "I know that the grass is green" as a combination of "I believe that the grass is green" (a statement about my state of mind) and "the grass is green" (a statement about the state of the world).

Or perhaps this is better understood in the third person: "John knows that the grass is green." The statement isn't about me or my beliefs (even if my beliefs motivate the assertion), and it's not just about John's belief as we can say "John believes that the grass is green but he doesn't know that the grass is green because the grass isn't green."

The grass being green is a requirement for John to know that the grass is green. A strongly held, justified belief isn't sufficient. And the grass being green is a requirement for me to know that the grass is green.

Correct but we don't know that.We can only arrive to a conclusion based on available facts. So our statements are evaluated as true or not true based on those facts. — Nickolasgaspar

Correct, but again our evaluation can only be made based on the available facts either we are happy or not. — Nickolasgaspar

I know. The point I am making is that the below are two different claims that you are conflating:

1. The statement has been evaluated as true
2. The statement is true

You argue for the former and conclude the latter which is a non sequitur.

In both cases(jury trial knowledge evaluation) we can never be absolutely sure and this is why in the case of the jury...the members don't choose between guilty and innocent! Like with every application of the Null Hypothesis, Significant findings are demanded in order to departs from the normal risk free position. So its always guilty/not guilty or true/not true without absolute convictions. — Nickolasgaspar

The defendant is claimed to be guilty, but it doesn't follow that the defendant is guilty. And the same with truth; we might claim that something is true, but it doesn't follow that the claim is true. I might claim that there is an apple in the bag, but there might not be an apple in the bag.

We need to acknowledge that our Knowledge and truth claims are limited by our nature, our methods and the rules of Logic. — Nickolasgaspar

Yes, our truth claims are limited by our nature, but truth itself isn't. Either there is an apple in the bag or there isn't, regardless of whatever I claim.

We can only evaluate a claim as true or not true based on the facts that are currently available to us...not in an absolute sense, because we don't know if we have all the facts needed to make such an absolute evaluation.
So when a claim is true, it means that it is Only Currently true based on the limited available facts we have. — Nickolasgaspar

That's a non sequitur. A jury can only judge a defendant to be guilty if the evidence suggests beyond reasonable doubt that he committed the crime, but whether or not he committed the crime has nothing to do with the evidence available to the jury and everything to do with historical events that actually happened.

So my evaluation of a claim as being true might be based on whatever facts are available to me, but that's not the same thing as the claim being true which is often based on things that I'm not aware of.

That is a complicated issue that must not only take freedom of contract and freedom of speech into account, but also social media's role as a public forum, and the almost monopolistic position it has gained in public discourse. — Tzeentch

And also what is being said. Should a government official be allowed to publish state secrets? Should I be allowed to knowingly and falsely accuse someone of having committed some heinous act and incite vigilante justice? Should you be allowed to post pornography on some popular website that children frequently visit?

Unrestricted freedom of speech wouldn't be a good thing and shouldn't be allowed.

I believe one should not face legal consequences (which is what being fired from one's job is), unless it constitutes a breach of the terms of employment as agreed upon in the employment contract. — Tzeentch

So it's OK for some social media company to remove your account should you violate whatever terms and services or community guidelines you implicitly agree to in signing up?

This conflates two matters: expressing one's opinions and being generally disruptive. A nice bit of framing. — Tzeentch

So if I'm at work and I express the opinion that Jewish and black people are inferior to white Christians and ought not be allowed to marry then it would be wrong of my boss to fire me for my remarks?

My gripe is a simple one. As far as I know, the only justification a transsexual man has for identifying himself as a man is that he feels/thinks he is a man. The absurdity of this transsexual logic is brought to the fore by applying it like so:

1. I feel/think I'm an elephant (man/woman)

Ergo,

2. I am an elephant (man/woman)!

Why is me going "I am an elephant" a delusion and a transsexual claiming "I am a man/woman" not? :chin:

By the way thanks for explaining BIID. Helpful! — Agent Smith

The difference is that gender is a psychological identity but being an elephant isn't.

What it fails to show is that it must be. — Isaac

Again, you're just showing that "I know X" could be of a form similar to "the grass is green" where we could look to some empirical fact to show it's truth. You're not showing anywhere that is must be of that sort. — Isaac

I don't know what you mean by "must" here. I'm not saying that the word "knowledge" must mean this; I'm only saying that the word knowledge does mean this.

It's perfectly plausible that we use the past tense of 'to know' to reference the relationship between our previous state of mind and out current beliefs about the state of the world, and the present tense to reference the relationship between our current state of mind and our current beliefs about that state of the world. — Isaac

I don't understand what tense has to do with it. In the general form we're discussing the meaning of the noun "knowledge" which obviously has no tense. The proposed definition is "a justified true belief". We can then use tense to talk about having (or not having) a justified true belief or having had (or not having had) a justified true belief, and so on, but grammatical tense has no bearing on the meaning of the noun.

The use of some perspective other than our own as the 'reality' we are talking about the confidence we have in our beliefs matching doesn't mean we always must use that perspective in all cases, only that we can. — Isaac

So why do you believe that a phrase like "I know that there is an apple in the bag" doesn't use this perspective but that a phrase like "there is an apple in the bag" does? If we just use your meaning-as-use approach then we will say that both assertions are only ever used when we believe that there is an apple in the bag, so then both knowing that there is an apple in the bag and there being an apple in the bag is just a matter of belief?

My argument is to look to the use of the term. It's used (present tense) in situations where the justifications are of a sufficient level. It's not reserved for use only when X is true. It's used in the past tense comparing to what we currently believe. Again, truth is not referenced at all. — Isaac

That's true of everything we say. I say "the grass is green" when I believe (with justification) that the grass is green. I say "the defendant is guilty" when I believe (with justification) that the defendant is guilty. It doesn't then follow that X being true isn't the truthmaker.

As I said before, you just appear to have a fallacious interpretation of meaning-as-use.

I've provided examples of how truth is a condition for knowledge:

If John claims to know that the answer to the equation is 5 and Jane claims to know that the answer to the equation is 6 then at least one of them is wrong in their claim of knowledge. They can't both know the answer and yet have different answers. — Michael

And using this example; assume you start digging and break a gas pipe. You wouldn't say "I knew where all the gas pipes were, but I was wrong"; you would say "I didn't know where all the gas pipes were." — Michael

Almost every competent English speaker will agree with this. Our understanding of the word "knowledge" is that it includes the condition of truth.

If I'm going to dig a hole in my yard, it's important that I know if there are buried gas pipes in that location — T Clark

And using this example; assume you start digging and break a gas pipe. You wouldn't say "I knew where all the gas pipes were, but I was wrong"; you would say "I didn't know where all the gas pipes were."

You might have thought you knew, but you didn't, because they weren't (only) where you believed them to be.

This is why people dismiss philosophy as useless. Silly arguments about abstract ideas that have nothing useful to say about how to get along. — T Clark

I don't understand this at all. You claim that there is an apple in the bag. We open the bag to find an orange. It didn't stop being an apple when we opened the bag; it just never was an apple.

So what's the difference between saying "there's an apple in the bag" and saying "I know where you were born"? If you can understand me when I say "there never was an apple in the bag" then why can't you understand me when I say "you never knew where I was born"?

Of course truth is important, but if it turns out later something I know is wrong, it doesn't stop being knowledge somehow retroactively. — T Clark

It doesn't stop being knowledge; it was never knowledge in the first place. Just because you claim to know the answer doesn't mean you do, regardless of how convinced and justified you are.

Say I have data chemical laboratory analysis data measurements for 100 water samples for 10 chemical constituents. So I have a 10 x 100 table of data. Is it true? What does that even mean? — T Clark

If the first cell says that there is iron in the first sample of water but there isn't iron in the first sample of water then the data in the first cell is false, and if there is iron in the first sample of water then the data in the first cell is true.

But if you didn't mean "true" then what did you mean when you said that "We can never be absolutely certain the information we have is correct"?

You left out the most important part - justification. Knowledge is information adequately justified for it's intended use. Different uses required different levels of justification. No knowledge can be absolutely certain. — T Clark

Truth is also important. If John claims to know that the answer to the equation is 5 and Jane claims to know that the answer to the equation is 6 then at least one of them is wrong in their claim of knowledge. They can't both know the answer and yet have different answers.

I suppose there must be an explanation on how to interpret these codes. — SpaceDweller

Yes, it's explained on that website: The Z codes are "factors influencing health status and contact with health services." It covers such things as blood type, BMI, and reasons for visiting a health service.

Where is this? In an African country or bible belt state. I don’t really regard either as an authority. — I like sushi

He's just completely misunderstanding the ICD. The Z codes are "factors influencing health status and contact with health services", not illnesses. For example, code Z02.6 is for when someone visits a health centre to be examined for insurance purposes and code Z68.22 is for an adult who has a healthy BMI of 22.0-22.9.

For someone who visits a health centre because they engage in high risk sexual behaviours, whether heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual (likely to be screened for STIs) the codes are Z72.51, Z72.52, and Z72.53 respectively.

And the 302.50 code is from ICD 9 and corresponds to Z87.890 in ICD 10 which is the code for people who have a history of sex reassignment.

We can never be absolutely certain the information we have is correct — T Clark

By "correct" do you mean "true"? Because then this very sentence accepts that there is such a thing as the truth which is independent of whatever we believe, so you appear to be contradicting yourself.

Right, and heterosexuality is an illness because of https://icd.codes/icd10cm/Z7251

And having blood is an illness because of https://icd.codes/icd10cm/Z671

:roll:

Yeah, that was pretty much my starting point too. "It's true that the grass is green" adds nothing to "the grass is green". The 'it's true' bit is implied by the statement within the context of a particular language game, there's nothing more to the truth of 'the grass is green' than the grass being green. Likewise with 'I know' (again, in certain contexts), where "I know the grass is green" adds nothing to the statement "the grass is green". After all, to use a famous example, I can hardly say "I merely believe it's raining outside, and it's raining outside", It wouldn't make sense. The expression "It's raining outside" already entails that I know it to be the case. — Isaac

The problem is when you claim that because we use the phrase "I know where my keys are" when we have a strong belief then having a strong belief is all there is to knowledge, which is like saying that because we use the phrase "the grass is green" when we believe that the grass is green then believing that the grass is green is all there is to the grass being green, whereas most people understand that the grass being green has nothing to do with what we believe and that our beliefs can be mistaken.

Yours just seems a fallacious interpretation of ordinary language philosophy, or some sort of idealism that rejects the notion of there being objective facts, and if the latter then we can dismiss it outright as this isn't a discussion on metaphysics.

If I say "I to the shops go" that's not correct either. I haven't said anything false, and you'd probably understand what I mean, but it's not correct. — Isaac

You're talking about grammatical correctness. I'm not sure what grammatical correctness has to do with truth. I agree that "I know where my keys are" is grammatically correct, but it doesn't then follow that it's true.

But you know what I mean when I say 'voiture' is not the correct word for a car in English, yes?

It's not a falsehood. The four-wheeled personal transportation machine is une voiture. But it's the wrong word, in English.

You may not understand the way I'm trying to put that into words, but we can skip that bit, it's irrelevant if you already know what I mean.

I mean 'correct' in the sense that 'car' is correct and 'voiture' is not. — Isaac

There are two parts to this. The first part is that "car" is the English word for a car, and the second is that your claim that there is a car is true. In the context of this discussion, I agree that "knowledge" is the English word for knowledge, but I question your claim that you have knowledge.

So going back your problematic claim:

"it is true that 'I know where my hat is', because I used the term correctly"

I accept that "I know where my hat is" is a grammatically correct English sentence. But it doesn't then follow that it's true. You must mean something else by "correct" in this claim. So can you explain to me the meaning of "correctly" such that it entails truth?

I don't see what that's got to do with the 'correctness' of a word. — Isaac

And I ask again, what do you mean by a word or phrase being correct? At first you said "'to be understood, to make sense", but a phrase can be understandable but also false, so even if it is correct to say "I know where my keys are" it may be false that you know where your keys are. You then went on to say that a word or phrase being correct has something to do with an ideal, and that's where you lost me.

I mean why does it matter? Why correct the errant child? To what end? — Isaac

People tend to want to know the truth. Correcting falsehoods is a normal thing that people do.

But I don't understand the relevance of your question. My point is that your use of the term "correct" is ambiguous, and open to equivocation. If by "correct" you mean "true" then your claim that "it is true that 'I know where my hat is', because I used the term correctly" begs the question. And if by "correct" you mean something else then your claim is prima facie a non sequitur: how does "correctness" (whatever that means) entail truth?

But what's wrong with saying something false? — Isaac

What do you mean by "wrong"? If by "wrong" you mean "false" then it's a truism that an asserted falsehood is wrong.

What's wrong with using the word 'bus' to refer to something that isn't a bus — Isaac

If there isn't a bus and you say "there's a bus" then what you say is false. Or by "wrong" did you mean something other than "false"? Perhaps "inappropriate"? Like with your use of the term "correct" we're at a risk of equivocation here.

As I said, it's trying to reference an ideal. — Isaac

I don't know what you mean by this.

If you hear a child refer to a car as "bus", you say "that's not the correct word", what is it you mean by that? — Isaac

That the thing they're referring to isn't a bus.

It's not about your ability to understand. — Isaac

But you just said "No, I mean 'correct' as in 'to be understood, to make sense'."

'Correct' here means more than being understood because you mentally make up for my error, it's trying to get at an ideal assuming you don't have to. — Isaac

So "correct" doesn't mean "understandable" and doesn't mean "appropriate". So what does it mean?

No, I mean 'correct' as in 'to be understood, to make sense'. No different to if I pointed to a tree and said "dog". I'd have just used the wrong word. " Tree" is the correct word.

I'm understood, if I say "I know where my keys are", to be very confident about my belief. I'm not understood to have verified the absolute truth about their location. As such, it seems reasonable to conclude I've used the term correctly, and I do indeed 'know' where my keys are.

The alternative seems really weird to me. That I say "I know where my keys are", I used all the terms correctly, but I don't actually know where my keys are. — Isaac

I can understand you even if what you say is false, so this doesn't work either.

Finally it has reached even this place. The postmodern woke sillyness. — ssu

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history

There's nothing "postmodern" about it.

But, using this analysis, "I know where my hat is", when used to describe a high degree of confidence in my belief about the whereabouts of my hat, is exactly the right use of the term, and so it is true that "I know where my hat is", because I used the term correctly. Even if my hat turns out not to be there. — Isaac

What do you mean by the right or correct use of the term? Do you mean appropriate? Because it can be appropriate to say something that is in fact false. So it may be that you're equivocating here. That it is appropriate to claim that you know where your hat is isn't necessarily that you know where your hat is.

The wiki article mentions an early response to this problem, which is also my response: you just have to amend "knowledge is justified true belief" with a condition which rules out false premises: say, "knowledge is true belief justified with true premises". — hypericin

I can't think of any Gettier Problem which survives this kind of analysis, or any other counterexample to:
Knowledge is true belief justified by true premises. — hypericin

Given that Gettier Problems were presented to show that the JTB definition of knowledge is insufficient, having to add a fourth condition to overcome them shows that the JTB definition of knowledge is insufficient.

All prayers are delusional by their very nature.

In the latest Trump news:

Judge: Trump ‘more likely than not’ committed crime in trying to block Biden win

A federal judge said Monday that then-President Donald Trump “more likely than not” committed federal crimes in trying to obstruct the congressional count of electoral college votes on Jan. 6, 2021 — an assertion that is likely to increase public pressure on the Justice Department to investigate the former commander in chief.

The determination from U.S. District Judge David O. Carter came in a ruling addressing scores of sensitive emails that Trump ally and conservative lawyer John Eastman had resisted turning over to the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot and related efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election result.

Eastman wrote key legal memos aimed at denying Democrat Joe Biden’s victory. The judge was assessing whether Eastman’s communications were protected by attorney-client privilege and was analyzing in part whether Eastman, Trump and others had consulted about the commission of a crime.

“Based on the evidence, the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021,” wrote Carter, who is based in California and has jurisdiction because that is where Eastman filed the case.

White House records turned over to House show 7-hour gap in Trump phone log on Jan. 6

Internal White House records from the day of the attack on the U.S. Capitol that were turned over to the House select committee show a gap in President Donald Trump's phone logs of seven hours and 37 minutes, including the period when the building was being violently assaulted, according to documents obtained by CBS News' chief election & campaign correspondent Robert Costa and The Washington Post's associate editor Bob Woodward.

The lack of an official White House notation of any calls placed to or by Trump for 457 minutes — from 11:17 a.m. to 6:54 p.m. — on Jan. 6, 2021 means there is no record of the calls made by Trump as his supporters descended on the U.S. Capitol, battled overwhelmed police and forcibly entered the building, prompting lawmakers and Vice President Mike Pence to flee for safety.

The 11 pages of records — which consist of the president's official daily diary and the White House switchboard call log — were turned over by the National Archives earlier this year to the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack.

The records show that Trump was active on the phone for part of the day, documenting conversations that he had with at least eight people in the morning and 11 people that evening. The gap also stands in stark contrast to the extensive public reporting about phone conversations he had with allies during the attack.

You don't pay others enough to do it for you, though. — baker

I don't know what you mean by this. Plenty of people choose to join the armed forces and get paid for it. Others choose to volunteer.

No.

On one side, ones nation provides their people with certain securities and services such as infrastructure, generally long lengths of diplomatically encouraged peace and prosperity, a protection and safety in numbers, the provision of resources etc. — Benj96

That's what I pay taxes for.

This some would argue it’s your personal duty as a man of fighting age to protect this social community that has nurtured and provided for you throughout your life. — Benj96

Is this a gender-neutral use of "man"?

Should we always have a choice whether we fight? — Benj96

Yes. I have no moral duty to put myself at risk of harm or to harm others.

Kidding aside, the decision to take hormone blockers is very serious and can have long-term consequences, and I think is therefore best made by a mature mind. — praxis

The Catch-22 is that by the time they're an adult it's too late to take hormone blockers.

And that's why it requires approval by qualified psychiatrists/other doctors (as with any other medical procedure on children). It's never just a case of the child says they want it and so gets it.

Just what kind of damages are available to a parent in the action created by this law? If it's noted by a teacher that the Sacred Band of Thebes was made up of gay lovers (a matter of historical fact), or that Oscar Wilde was likely gay, for example, what damages are caused and how are they determined? Would expert testimony be required for them to be awarded? — Ciceronianus

Or that Barack and Michelle Obama are married. Or that Joe Biden is a man.

YOU were the one that used the term "male" to refer to someone with XX chromosomes: — Harry Hindu

I linked to an article about a condition known as "XX male syndrome" and asked you if you would refer to a person with such a syndrome using "he" or "she". You said that you would refer to such a person using "he".

If you prefer then I'll rephrase the question. Is a person with XX chromosomes but also an SRY gene that is responsible for the development of a body that is typically associated with a person with XY chromosomes a man or a woman?

Is that what transpeople are saying - that their brain was transplanted into another body? — Harry Hindu

No, but I suspect that the way they feel about themselves and their body is analogous to the way that I would feel about myself and my body were my brain to be transplanted into a body with different genitalia.

So I find it hard to believe that you would still identify as a man if you had estrogen in your system and you observed your body as that of a woman. — Harry Hindu

Yet trans-men exist, so it shouldn't be hard to believe.

And in your example, you have memories of being a man. Transgenders don't have prior memories of being one sex that conflict with their actual sex. They claim to have always had these feelings. — Harry Hindu

My feelings of being a man would be a product of having lived as I did before my brain transplant; their feelings of being a man would be a product of whatever it is that is responsible for transgender people feeling the way they do. Both of us have an inner sense of being a man that is incongruent with the actual body we have.

So regardless of why we feel the way we do, the fact that you can understand that I can identify as a man even after having my brain transplanted into a body with breasts, a womb, ovaries, a vagina, etc. shows that you can understand gender as distinct from biological sex.