Epistemology

[max_freakout]

That's a type of knowledge claim, right?

it is a 'fact'

ie, a proposition which is true

the proposition:
'knowledge is impossible'

 

[max_freakout]

I can only suggest that you start over at post #37 and work forward.

take me out of the picture.....


im asking you, how is knowledge possible? Surely it isnt?

 

[max_freakout]

Think about it..........

 

[Jonti]

... it is also impossible (ie contradictory) to make a factually false claim about the world...

Funnily enough, I'd say that's rather a good example of a false claim about the world

I'd say the claim that the moon is made of cheese is false.

I agree that one cannot be certain that the moon is not made of cheese but how does that mean it is not correct to assert that it is not made of cheese?

 

[Jonti]

im asking you, how is knowledge possible? Surely it isnt?

Well, I think it must be possible. As we've discussed, to assume the contrary leads to an immediate contradiction.

But I'm afraid I don't know how it works. What is clear to me is that knowledge is something that minds have. So an answer to the question would depend on a coherent and sensible philosophy of mind; how it arises in material bodies; what it does; the nature of awareness, that sort of thing.

 

[Santino]

Please explain what you mean by 'it does nothing'?

It does nothing because you've set up a definition that can never be satisfied. It tells us nothing about the world, about minds, about knowledge.

Epistemology springs into existence, for the purpose of denying this "perfectly consistent point of view"

OF COURSE knowledge is 'that which we cannot be wrong about'! If we could be wrong about it, it *obviously* wouldn't be knowledge

No. If I know something, I'm not wrong about it, because a part of knowledge is that the thing known is true. But, I may think I know things that are false, in which case I am wrong.

You aren't 'choosing' to define it this way, how else could it possibly be defined?

Just in the way that I did it. As consistent as yours, and closer to the way that most people use the word 'knowledge'.

the sentence 'I know a fact which could be wrong' is a logical contradiction-in-terms

I agree, and I never said that.

I can believe anything, but anything i believe could turn out to be wrong, it is impossible for me to know if any belief is true or false. Therefore I dont really know anything, how could you or I possibly know if any particular belief is true or false?

Then please please please tell me what the difference between, on the one hand, the well-formed robust beliefs that allow me to walk to work, cook, construct bridges that don't collapse and send men to the moon* and, on the other hand, any other shit you may care to believe that isn't based on evience and reason.

Nobody can act AS IF they accept that they don't know anything! Epistemology, that section in the library, exists just in order to deny that we can't know anything, or can you tell me another reason it exists?

You've lost me now.

BUT you can never know if 'P is true', your first condition for *knowledge', is true or false

Read carefully. the conditions for me knowing P are that a) P is true, and that b) I believe P for a good reason. Whether or not I know that I know P is irrelevant.

right but this concept of '*knowledge', is just the same as the concept of 'belief'

No, it's different because it is based on evidence, reason, coherence with other beliefs and other things.

You believe what your parents told you about the date you were born, you see it on your birth certificate etc, but there are any number of situations you could imagine, where this might turn out to be wrong, use your imagination, maybe something your parents never told you, is that you were born at 5 minutes past midnight on May 4th, so really you were born on May 5th, maybe you were adopted with forged certificates, who knows?

Read my post. I only KNOW it if it's true. If I'm mistaken then I don't know it. Why do you have such a problem with this?



*Not necessarily carried out by me personally.

 

[max_freakout]

Funnily enough, I'd say that's rather a good example of a false claim about the world

how do you know it's factually false? You don't, it could be true or false

I'd say the claim that the moon is made of cheese is false.I agree that one cannot be certain that the moon is not made of cheese but how does that mean it is not correct to assert that it is not made of cheese?

'being correct to assert' is not the same as 'knowing', because you could never possibly know if you were correct or not, the moon might be made of cheese, but equally, it might not be,

as you yourself say, you cannot be certain

knowing = being certain

therefore knowledge is impossible

 

[max_freakout]

Well, I think it must be possible. As we've discussed, to assume the contrary leads to an immediate contradiction.

But as we also discussed, to assume that knowledge IS possible, also leads to a contradiction, the reason being, you could never know if knowledge was possible

But I'm afraid I don't know how it works. What is clear to me is that knowledge is something that minds have. So an answer to the question would depend on a coherent and sensible philosophy of mind; how it arises in material bodies; what it does; the nature of awareness, that sort of thing.

no matter which way you look at it, knowledge is impossible, you contradict yourself talking about how it is 'clear to me' despite the fact you are totally unable to explain it, because you are denying to yourself the simple and obvious truth, that knowledge is impossible

you waffle on about the nature of awareness, material bodies etc, just to hide from the truth

 

[Jonti]

But as we also discussed, to assume that knowledge IS possible, also leads to a contradiction, the reason being, you could never know if knowledge was possible...

Not quite. We can never know if a particular claim constitutes knowledge, that's all.

And are you really saying that knowledge is independent of a knowing mind?

 

[max_freakout]

It does nothing because you've set up a definition that can never be satisfied. It tells us nothing about the world, about minds, about knowledge.

there is no other possible definition which distinguishes between certain knowledge, and mere belief

unless you can suggest one?

No. If I know something, I'm not wrong about it, because a part of knowledge is that the thing known is true. But, I may think I know things that are false, in which case I am wrong.

but anything you believe could be false, you could be wrong about anything you think you know, therefore you dont know that you know anything

Just in the way that I did it. As consistent as yours, and closer to the way that most people use the word 'knowledge'.

for you to know that p, p must be true, but you could never know if p is true or not

most people use the word knowledge wrongly, because they are actually talking about belief, but they use the word 'knowledge'

Then please please please tell me what the difference between, on the one hand, the well-formed robust beliefs that allow me to walk to work, cook, construct bridges that don't collapse and send men to the moon* and, on the other hand, any other shit you may care to believe that isn't based on evience and reason.

there is no difference, in the sense that anything you think you know could be wrong, even the most well-formed, robust belief you have, could be proven wrong

Read carefully. the conditions for me knowing P are that a) P is true, and that b) I believe P for a good reason. .

Right, so for any given proposition, how would you ever be able to tell if it satisfies condition (a) or not?

You wouldnt, because you could never be certain

knowledge is impossible

 

[max_freakout]

Not quite. We can never know if a particular claim constitutes knowledge, that's all.

why not?


Because it is impossible to know anything?

 

[Jonti]

No, because one can always be mistaken.

 

[max_freakout]

No, because one can always be mistaken.

what's the difference?


one can always be mistaken = one can never know anything


these are 2 ways of saying the same thing, as i said much earlier in the thread, you can believe anything, but you can never know anything

 

[Jonti]

I think I'm right in saying that you would allow that knowledge is a true belief (?).

Then, the fact that a particular belief turns out to be false, does not imply that all beliefs are false. Some of them could still be true beliefs.

Despite our undoubted fallibility, some of our beliefs may yet be true. We just don't know which ones

 

[max_freakout]

I think I'm right in saying that you would allow that knowledge is a true belief (?).

Im not sure, i agree that knowledge must be 'true', but im not sure if it is 'belief'

Then, the fact that a particular belief turns out to be false, does not imply that all beliefs are false. Some of them could still be true beliefs.

Some of them could still be, but equally, all or any of them might not be, the fact is, you have no way of knowing, you are totally in the dark about epistemic certainty

Despite our undoubted fallibility, some of our beliefs may yet be true. We just don't know which ones

our fallibility is absolute, and knowledge is impossible, THIS is a 'true fact', paradoxically

you can be certain, that knowledge is impossible, epistemology isnt mysterious

 

[Aldebaran]

"wisdom, is knowing that i know nothing" - Socrates

Socrates underscoring my reasoning that there is no knowledge, only the suggestion thereof.
Maybe I must be dead for a few centuries before people start to think about it

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

I was being sarcastic.

Of course you were. What else is left in abscence of an answer.
Now prove me wrong, mr. Arrogant.

salaam.

 

[Jonti]

... one can always be mistaken = one can never know anything ...

No, this is just wrong, I'm afraid.

Of course people are fallible.

But that does not mean they are always mistaken, that one can never know anything.

 

[Jonti]

Alde, I've been attempting to show (in dialogue with max_freakout) that the claim we can know nothing is contradictory.

Have you any thoughts on our conversation?

 

[i-am-your-idea]

even if you thought you knew something, and it turned out to be true, you still didnt know it in the first place.
even if it happened to be correct, you didnt know for certain that you were right to begin with.

also i cant think of an example where you could ever have a belief completely validated afterwards.
there is always the possibility that you are wrong.

saying 'i know that i know nothing' is a complex paradox, rather than a belief and as such is able to transends itself.

 

[bodach]

Have you any thoughts on our conversation?

I have. Why do some people put words in 'bold'. I'm not that fucking stupid.

 

[i-am-your-idea]

But that does not mean they are always mistakenQUOTE]

the arguement doesnt say people are *always* mistaken, just that they might be.

 

[Aldebaran]

Alde, I've been attempting to show (in dialogue with max_freakout) that the claim we can know nothing is contradictory.

Have you any thoughts on our conversation?

Didn't read all posts... I'll try to do it tomorrow (well, it is morning but first I need to find a bed for a few hours)

salaam.

 

[butchersapron]

even if you thought you knew something, and it turned out to be true, you still didnt know it in the first place.
even if it happened to be correct, you didnt know for certain that you were right to begin with.

also i cant think of an example where you could ever have a belief completely validated afterwards.
there is always the possibility that you are wrong.

saying 'i know that i know nothing' is a complex paradox, rather than a belief and as such is able to transends itself.

Fallibility+idiocy=?

 

[Jonti]

I'm reminded of Godel's Theorem in mathematics. He showed that in arithmetic there are things which are true, but which one cannot prove to be true.

In a similar vein, it seems to me that we may know true things about the world, even though we cannot prove them; and we may not even be able to say which of the beliefs we have about the world are in fact true, and which are in fact false.

I can know I own a cat, without being sure of which cat it is.

 

[Jonti]

I have. Why do some people put words in 'bold'. I'm not that fucking stupid.

 

[max_freakout]

Alde, I've been attempting to show (in dialogue with max_freakout) that the claim we can know nothing is contradictory.

Have you any thoughts on our conversation?

i already knew this


i have shown, that the claim that we CAN know thiings, is ALSO contradictory

 

[Jonti]

Oh, no you haven't!

 

[max_freakout]

But that does not mean they are always mistaken

I did not make this claim, this is a straw man you are arguing against.....


the claim i am making, is that you could never know, in any partcular instance, whether or not you were mistaken

and therefore, knowledge is completely impossible

 

[max_freakout]

the arguement doesnt say people are *always* mistaken, just that they might be.

exactly, saying 'always mistaken' is the strawman

you couldnt possibly know if your attribution of 'knowledge' was mistaken or not

because knowledge is impossible