Let me start by saying that I don't think we'll ever agree on this one ;)
On 6-8-2009 22:56, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 5-8-2009 0:39, Darren New wrote:
>>> andrel wrote:
>>>> Depends on who we are talking about. For myself I reserve 
>>>> 'knowledge' for others 'superstition'. (just like most people)
>>> I can't parse that sentence.
>>
>> That may be a dutchism How about if you replace 'reserve' by 'use', 
>> will it parse then?
> 
> Either you mean "I reserve 'superstition' to mean other peoples' 
> 'knowledge'" or I don't know what you mean. Why would you use the word 
> knowledge to refer to what you consider supersition in others?

Because that is what everybody does, even you. There will be things that 
you believe are true to such extend that you don't see how anyone can 
have a different opinion (either on evolution, the position of man and 
women, gays, life, the moonlanding, some scientific theory, or whatever) 
that are still disputed by some and considered part of your false religion.


>> As far as I understood, you said that I should use 'believe' for all 
>> but the most basic math because you or someone else might think 
>> different.
> 
> No, I said knowledge is justified true belief. 

Again that implies that you or somebody knows what is 'true'. I keep 
repeating that there are many differences of opinion about what is true, 
about what processes are allowed to determine if something is true and 
all the other metalevels.


> If you're not justified 
> in your belief, then you by definition don't know what you're asserting. 
> If you believe in something that's false, you don't know it. If you 
> don't believe it's true, then you don't know it either.
> 
> Simply asserting that if you're sufficiently confident then you know 
> something is newspeak.

no, it is much older than written history.

>> In particular I am not allowed to say that I know no god exist nor 
>> would the pope be allowed to say that he knows God does exist.
> 
> He (or you) could *say* it. That doesn't mean he's right. Assuming we're 
> still arguing over whether or not God actually exists, then it's a 
> question of whether it's (a) true and (b) justified to say it's true.
> 
> Distinguish "I know God exists" from "I know I am Napoleon."  What's the 
> difference between these two claims? Do you see any difference between 
> these two claims?  If not, why use that word when it's equally true to 
> claim "I am confident God exists" or "I am confident I am Napoleon"?

Because nobody would say such a thing. Technically correct, but it would 
raise eyebrows if used in ordinary conversation. 'I am confident this is 
my daughter', 'No sir he could not have killed him, I am confident he 
was home last night'.

>  > In my opinion
>> you can only do that if you have an objective reference frame that 
>> allows you to distinguish claims in a fields of belief versus those 
>> where truths that may be absolute.
> 
> Now you've made "knowledge" objective, which I think you were objecting to.

Yes I was following your reasoning here, trying to point out leads to a 
nonsense conclusion. I am confident that in e.g. Greek I would have used 
another time than you did read.


>> I know I would run into problems soon in most fields, even my own. How 
>> would you like a doctor at your bed: 'I believe that I saw more than 2 
>> mm ST elevation on an ECG that I believe the nurse said was yours. If 
>> that was the case then most doctors believe that this may indicate 
>> that you are suffering from ischemia at the moment. It could be that 
>> the electrode was wrongly positioned, but I believe this is an 
>> experience nurse. I believe the general opinion is that the following 
>> treatment gives the best results in such cases: ...'
> 
> No, because he has justification and it is true. 

No, he merely thinks it is true, he may be wrong, so he has to use 
'believe' according to your rules.

> By saying "I know 
> you're suffering from ischemia" he's saying he is justified in believing 
> it's true and that it's true.
> 
> Simple question: Can you "know" something that's objectively real-world 
> false?  
yes. I know Newton's law of gravity. Now you may argue that we know it 
is wrong but still can be used as approximation. OTOH that is also true 
of almost any other important theory in physics.
I also know that most cardiologists know what causes the T wave part of 
the ECG. I also know that they are wrong.

Post a reply to this message