On 16-8-2009 23:57, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Let me put it this way: I say I *'know'* something if it is beyond 
>> reasonable doubt for *me*.
> 
> Yes. And when I say I *know* something, it means I believe it, and I 
> have a reason to believe it. Whether it's actually "true" has to be 
> accessed by someone other than myself, because I could be mistaken in my 
> reasons for believing.
> 
> I sometimes informally say I "know" something when I really mean I am 
> strongly convinced I'm right. Unless it's actually true, however, it's 
> not knowledge. And since it's possible we're all mistaken entirely about 
> the reality of the universe's existence, it's remotely possible that 
> what we all have strong justification for believing is indeed not 
> knowledge but mistaken belief.
> 
>> 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. 
> 
> I'm not just talking about belief in a god. I'm talking (if I remember 
> after a week's vacation) about the meaning of the word "knowledge."
> 
> I'm trying to distinguish the word "knowledge" from "conviction." If you 
> don't admit there are cases where you can be convinced something is true 
> that isn't knowledge, i.e., if you think that being strongly convinced 
> of something is enough to make it "knowledge", then we're just 
> disagreeing about the word. I feel that making "knowledge" mean "topic 
> about which I'm strongly convinced regardless of the truth of the 
> referent" just muddles the word and leaves us with no word that means 
> "something that I believe and is true."
> 
> Bringing arguments about deities into the picture is just muddling the 
> conversation, because neither side is likely to admit that the other 
> side might have a justified belief.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> It depends on how certain you want to be. Of course if we're all brains 
> in a bottle, then we are all 100% incorrect about the universe.
> 
> However, if I'm justified in believing X is true, and X is true, then 
> that's knowledge. If X is false, that's not knowledge. You wish to 
> muddle the waters by saying that whether X is true or not is irrelevant.
> 
>>> 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?
> 
> Irrelevant. If you accept objective reality, there are things that are 
> true about it and things that aren't, whether you know which is which or 
> not.
> 
>>> 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)?
> 
> Because the justification and belief can make it so, but the objective 
> reality defines truth. If you're arguing there is no objective reality 
> at all, then what is or isn't knowledge is kind of pointless to discuss.
> 
>>> 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'?
> 
> "Allowed"?  Sure.  And if he's confident he's Jesus reincarnated, 
> returned to start the Rapture, he'd be allowed to say he knows it. That 
> doesn't mean it's true.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I think if you're going to claim as true something objective, you should 
> have justification for that claim that is objective.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Category 1 and 2 and 3 are the levels of justification. You can't both 
> be right.
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> Yes, but you've been unable to express what that is. I have already 
> given you my definition. What's an example of a difference between being 
> confident, justifiably confident, and having knowledge? What's the 
> difference between "I'm convinced because of these reasons" and "I know 
> it", other than "it's objectively true"?

I think that if I answer all your points separately I would be repeating 
myself too many times, so let's just do it once.
My definition was given before as: beyond reasonable doubt.
So we have both given our definition, we both feel that that should be 
clear and we both think that the definition of the other has too many 
holes. Seems to show to me that we use different standards. ;)

About the objective reality. Sure, it must exist. I am living in one and 
so are you. Only, neither of those two need to coincide with the 
objective objective reality. The reason being that before we can agree 
on what objectively true is we need to agree on the rules to define what 
is objective. I am pretty sure we would not agree on those. And above 
that is another meta level...

The reason for bringing it deities is that it make the point clearer, at 
least that is what I think. For me it is simple, no god (in the 
conventional) sense exist. As I said that is category 3. There is no way 
for me to come to any other conclusion nor is there anything anybody can 
say that would instil any doubt in me. Hence 'beyond reasonable doubt' 
i.e. absolute truth and fully justified to use words like 'know' and 
'knowledge'. That I know that there are other people just as confident 
as I am about the inverse is, for me, irrelevant. Simply a matter of 
different objective realities.
I am confident about a lot of other stuff, but my life would be the same 
if it turned out not to be so.

Post a reply to this message