On 4-8-2009 1:46, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> What I said (and I think Jim is along the same line) is not that 
>> knowledge is faith but that those that believe *know* that they are 
>> right.
> 
> Right. Except by making it mean "I'm really *really* faithful", you've 
> eliminated the usefulness of the word.

Again, that is not what I did.

> If I said "I *know* Lincoln was the first president of the USA", what 
> would you say? What if I was absolutely positive? Would you say I knew 
> that for a fact?  Or would you say "No, your belief is incorrect"?
> 
>> I can not prove it,
> 
> You have justification for your belief.
> 
> One can argue over whether there is sufficient justification to turn a 
> belief in something that happens to be true into knowledge, sure. But no 
> amount of confidence without justification will turn belief into knowledge.

The problem with this statement is in 'without justification'. That 
unfortunately is not an objective term and that is where the problem is.

> 
> Maybe I'm just a bit oversensitive, with all the people who actually 
> deep-down inside know they are *not* right trying to convince me by 
> overstating their knowledge.

I am overstating, deep down there is no doubt, but I am not trying to 
convince you, so that is not incompatible with your statement

Post a reply to this message