On 7-8-2009 1:25, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Because that is what everybody does, even you.
> 
> Yes. That doesn't mean it *is* knowledge, and that doesn't mean 
> everything is reasonably "knowledge" to someone. That's why I'm bringing 
> up the examples of Napoleon.

Let me put it this way: I say I *'know'* something if it is beyond 
reasonable doubt for *me*. Beyong reasonable doubt can be for a number 
of reasons:
1) based on authority that I have no reason to doubt (the sun is about 
150 million kilometers away)
2) own experience (there must be an algorithm that computes the cube of 
an integer finalizing 3 bits per iteration*)
3) when the negation would be incompatible with my existence (god does 
not exist)
Possibly an underlying problem in this discussion is that you assumed 
that the non existence of god is category 1 or 2 knowledge (because it 
would be for you?) whereas it is actually category 3. Also possibly 
confusing is that I admit that for theists the negation may also be 
category 3. I don't see a problem in that because we are different people.

>>> No, I said knowledge is justified true belief. 
>>
>> Again that implies that you or somebody knows what is 'true'. 
> 
> No it doesn't. It merely means there are some assertions of belief which 
> we cannot determine the truth of, and hence we cannot determine whether 
> they are actually knowledge.

To which I countered that there is virtually nothing that we can be sure 
of and for those things that we are certain about we can always question 
the method by which we are certain. The logical conclusion is that under 
your rules there is no knowledge at all.

>> 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.
> 
> Right. And I keep repeating that while there are many differences of 
> opinion, there are also many facts about which there are few differences 
> of opinion.

How many is a few and who is to draw the line?

>>>  > 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.
> 
> But I didn't say we could distinguish confidently between whether 
> something that is disputed is knowledge and something that is disputed 
> is not knowledge.

So why would you object if someone says that for him it is (or isn't)?

>>> 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.
> 
> I'm not making rules. I'm simply saying that if he says he knows 
> something, and that thing is false, then he's mistaken. I'm not saying 
> he isn't confident.

And if he is confident that it is true would he be allowed to say it is 
'knowledge'? I feel that time and time again we come back to a person 
expressing something he knows is true versus you as an outsider claiming 
he should not say that because *you* know different.

>>> Simple question: Can you "know" something that's objectively 
>>> real-world false?  
>> yes. I know Newton's law of gravity. 
> 
> You know what it is, but you also know it doesn't apply in all 
> situations. And that's true of every other replaced theory, and possible 
> of every other scientific theory.
> 
>> I also know that most cardiologists know what causes the T wave part 
>> of the ECG. I also know that they are wrong.
> 
> You see, I would never say that. I would say "They think they know what 
> causes it, but I know they're wrong", or even "I think they're wrong".

That is because you are reasoning from your perspective not theirs or 
mine. It is category 1 knowledge for them, so they are allowed to use 
'know'. Also I don't think they are wrong, I know, that is category 2.

> OK, so to you, there's no difference between knowing something and being 
> confident it's true. I feel that's a loss.

There is, knowing implies a lot more than merely being confident.

------------------
*) To create some sort of parallelism with god I decided to take an 
example of something I, and possibly nobody else, has never seen.

Post a reply to this message