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"?

-- 
   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