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?

>>> I know, and I am arguing that you do so because you have the false 
>>> belief that knowledge is objective.
>>
>> I never claimed it was objective. Indeed, I asserted the opposite.
> 
> Ok, then we don't understand one another (again). Why do you assert that 
> I cannot use 'know' when I talk about thing that *I* know for certain. 

Because if you're *wrong*, you only think you know it.  Whether you're 
*wrong* is what can be subjective.

But if you claim you "know" you are George Washington, I'll claim you are 
merely strongly deluded.

> 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. 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.


> 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"?

 > 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.

> 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. 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?  If you want to say "I know I'm dead", simply because you are 
confidently deluded of that fact, then you're just going to make "know" a 
useless word meaning the same thing as "confident".

Clearly the pope thinks he is justified in believing in the existence of his 
God.  I am justified in believing his God does not exists. Which one of us 
knows the truth depends on whether his God actually exists. I'm not sure how 
you can argue with that. I'm not sure how you can say we both know the 
answer, when those answers are mutually contradictory.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message