On 4-8-2009 23:49, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Only from the perspective of an outsider. Knowledge is not objective, 
>> I understand why you would like it to be so, but alas...
> 
> Well, we're kind of debating over the meaning of the word. What's the 
> objective word *you* would use for justified true belief?

Depends on who we are talking about. For myself I reserve 'knowledge' 
for others 'superstition'. (just like most people)

>> Which would not stop some people from knowing they had been abducted, 
>> even if you would insist they mere believe it.
> 
> OK. I'm just objecting to the use of that word to mean that you can know 
> something which you are justified in believing is false.

I know, and I am arguing that you do so because you have the false 
belief that knowledge is objective.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:49:13 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 22:10:36 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is basic child development stuff, sheesh..
>>> Well, you may have a background in child development.  I don't. 
>>> Sheesh.
>>>
>>> Jim
>> Actually, no I don't, but I read **a lot**, especially since, starting
>> some 20 years ago, I had a fascination with AI, and the logical means to
>> learn about why it didn't work well, once I found that, is to learn how
>> the mind worked. My discovery was, sadly, that real brains don't work
>> much better, they just have a more robust system of, "fill in the blanks
>> and hope it works".
> 
> My point stands, you've read more about it than I do.  So your expressed 
> "disdain" for what I said that you said was "basic child development 
> stuff" really was misplaced, which kinda was my point.
> 
> Jim
Hmm. Point taken. But, then, I also tend to forget that not everyone 
necessarily took even the basic psychology course I did in college 
either, which covered at least bits of it too. Still, its harder to miss 
some of the common examples of mind tricks, which have been shown on TV 
programs. But, again, that only works if you presume they where watching 
the show on "Funny tricks played on people using psychology.", instead 
of, "Random sitcom #345, in which someone trips over a hose.", that day 
instead. lol Or, well... you get what I mean. Picking things with, 
relatively, *zero* content in new ideas, or which tend to feed into 
common perception, or not watching at all, instead of pointing out where 
those perceptions fail, etc.

I suppose... Its sort of similar to the reaction that someone who has 
gone to church every day for 20 years (but probably never read the Bible 
on their own from cover to cover, in my, and other's experience), 
wondering how I don't **get** how all the "truths" they know are valid. 
But, its not *quite* the same thing, since, imho, they are the people 
standing, like the natives in one of the other posts, looking out at a 
field and going, "How did you make cows the size of flies?" I definitely 
need to remember that one.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

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.

> 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.

-- 
   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

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 12:10:24 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:54:23 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>
>>>> Instinctive certainties, however, are wrong more than half the time.
>>> Citation?
>>>
>> Uh.. Such numbers are also made up and wrong, more than half the time?
>> lol
> 
> It is true that 78.64% (I'm rounding) of all statistics are made up on 
> the spot.  :-)
> 
>> Seriously though, I don't know the actual number, or have a cite, but I
>> *have* seen cases dealing with cognition, where you can not only get
>> 50-50 fails, but even 99% failures. One of the best examples is the,
>> "two people with a big sign walking rudely between two people talking.",
>> experiment they run, yearly, at some colleges, for their psychology
>> experiments. The one where they replace the person asking the question
>> of some random person with someone the wrong height, dressed wrong, in
>> clothing some **totally** different color, or even the wrong gender, and
>> like 90% of the people being "asked", never notice the substitution. The
>> brain just starts over where it was interrupted, so long as the
>> conversation "seems" to be the same, and ignore **everything** else. The
>> replacement could probably be standing their nude and the only reaction
>> you would get was, "Damn, I didn't realize when you came up that you
>> where nude.", not, "Where the hell did the original person I was talking
>> to go?"
>>
>> The ease by which the mind can be tricked is actually quite scary.
> 
> True, but at the same time, some people have *very* good instincts.  I 
> seem to be one of those kinds of people - because I have an instinct that 
> something's going to be OK or work out for the best, and I find that 
> better than 90% of the time, I'm right.  That's far better than the luck 
> of averages.
> 
Actually. No. There are two problems with this. One is called 
"confirmation bias". The mind, as a means of helping itself *make* such 
good choices, de-emphasizes bad ones, while exaggerating perceived good 
ones. The result is that we tend to forget the bad things. Someone gave 
and example of this about why we tend to, in old age, think the past was 
better than now. The way they put it is, "50% of everything ever made is 
useless crap, whether it be music, literature, or anything else. Much of 
the good stuff is kept, some of the bad stuff survives, but, overall, we 
only ever actually remember the good bits, so the past always **seems** 
to contain fewer problems, better ideas, better things, etc. than now." 
Or, something roughly to that effect.

Everyone thinks that they make good instinctive decisions 90% of the 
time, save for those people that are totally disfunctional and hide in 
their houses, unwilling to make *any* decisions. Its our nature to 
forget the cases where we screwed up, or at least marginalize them, in 
favor of a self perception of being right most of the time. We couldn't 
function effectively if we second guessed every action, based on a 
recognition that we get it close enough to right only half the time to 
call it "good instinct".

Its also a tested psychological factor that the true twits in society 
have a coping mechanism, by which they "exaggerate" their own competence.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/01/18/MN73840.DTL

By the same token, people *good at their jobs*, tend to know that they 
could be wrong, are prone to mistakes, and can get to be hyper critical 
of their own successes. What would appear to be "pride" or "humility" in 
people with high positions could very well be signs of instead 
"incompetence" and "great skill", in the same order. Left me struggling 
with an infinite loop though, "are the things I am bad at, things I am 
actually pretty good at, but I didn't see it, because I am too critical, 
or am I instead horrible at the things I think I am good at, and still 
as bad at the ones I think I am, as I believe." lol

> I've also been told by people in professions that depend on the ability 
> to read people and situations that my instincts are exceptionally good - 
> I have an extremely good track record and picking out attempts at 
> deception.  Part of that I attribute to the fact that I tend not to trust 
> very easily because I know that people will generally try to get away 
> with whatever they can.
> 
> Jim

I would, with some caveats, tend to allow for their perceptions to be 
less flawed than yours. The caveats being, for starters, that their 
perception of "why" you seem to have good instincts may be due to their 
own flawed views of who a good candidate for deception are, and the 
like, due to personal bias, than to actual skill in the matter. Good 
example of this sort of fun thing:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8183502.stm

Now, if everyone that was telling you that you are good at detecting 
deceit where one of those who claimed to trust priests, farmers and 
prostitutes, before scientists, what would your reaction be to their 
certainty of how good you are?

Point being, pretty much by definition, any social group you are in is 
**already** predisposed, by you as a member, to perceive your 
contribution as more trustworthy than someone else's. Its the whole my 
tribe/monkey-troop is more worthy than those other monkeys, thing. ;)

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
>>> Even tho everyone participating already knows what it means? Even when 
> 
>> (Consider a recording of the debate being discovered by an alien 
>> culture 50,000 years in the future who have no other reference for the 
>> language...)
> 
> I don't follow. How would aliens 50,000 years in the future be 
> participating and already know what it means?

No, no...the other way around.  The aliens 50,000 years in the future 
*wouldn't* be participating, and wouldn't necessarily already know what 
the words that were being used mean.  Hence the explicitly defining 
everything...for their convenience.  XD

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

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?

>> 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. 
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. 
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. 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.
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: ...'

Post a reply to this message

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

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

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.

>> 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.

> 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.

>>> 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.

Sure they would. I am confident God doesn't exist. See? :-)

 > 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.

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.

>> 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.

>> 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".

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

-- 
   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

On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:10:09 +0200, andrel wrote:

> There was a trick question about that on QI some tie ago, I forgot the
> point, however

I remember that....and now I wonder what it was, too. :-/

Jim

Post a reply to this message