And, by the say, what is the matter with talking about the capital of Peru? You don't say. That seems to be as good an example of knowledge as any, and it is simple, so that there are no irrelevant complications. If we can work out what is knowing in simple cases, then we may be able to in complex cases. So we should start, at least, with simple cases like Lima.

Ok, in the year 1988 i was innocent enough to believe that Bonn is the capital of Germany.
I 'knew' that Bonn was the capital of Germany.
The fact that Bonn is the capital of Germany was part of my knowledge pile.
As i explained, this so called fact turned out to be false.
The problem with your truth concept is, that the knowledge pile will always contain false elements which makes it invalid to serve for providing truth.
The knowledge pile is actually a believe pile.
Every human has his very individual believe pile, and the elements in them are so different that they contradict each other.
You say when something you know turns out to be false it simply wasn't knowledge but actually believe. The other things that are in fact true are knowledge.
This concept is invalid because unfunctional for this universe.
Every fact that you know is primarily only a candidate for knowledge. To decide wether or not is a fact demands objective truth which no one of us has. For example a person named Christian may say that we all go to heaven after death. And he knows this for sure. Your truth concept is useless in this case because he can never be proven wrong.
Actually we have to take two cases:
Case one he is not right.
Case two he is right.
Given case one: He will never be proven wrong even though he is wrong. He dies and nobody can even know wether or not he was wrong. Your concept totally failed in this case.
Given case two: He will never be proven right even though he is right. Even if god appeared in a burning bush saying "Hey, Christian was right!" we would rather believe whoever tells us this story was halluzinating than believing it.
Even if you STILL insist on this being a valid proof of knowledge, it doesn't help all the people who believe something else. If there are billions of people believing in theory A, B and C. With your truth concept what they consider knowledge would have to be judged in a different 'Universe', not in ours.
That means we have a case in which nobody ever gets falsification even though everybody is wrong.
And we have a case in which a certain group gets verification but not in this universe and the rest only gets falsification, also not in this universe. Wether the verification nor the falsification can be made in our universe.
That means if only A can be right, all the rest of humankind believe they know and will never be corrected (in this universe).
In any case this concept is totally unfunctional for our universe.
Everybody has to just insist that his so called 'knowledge' pile is the only valid one.
Regarding that we have billions of 'knowledge' piles somebody who thinks reasonable would say this actually creates a huge amount of false 'knowledge' piles.
How can this be a valid concept?

We do not always know what we believe we know, just as when we believe anything else is true, it may not be true. Believing we know is no different in that respect from believing anything else. We may always be wrong. In fact, that is one big difference between believing and knowing. We can believe what is false, but still believe it. But, we cannot know what is false, and still know it. Knowledge implies truth, belief does not.
When we think analytically about knowledge and belief, it all becomes quite clear.

Your attitude is totally harmless when you think about what is the capital of Brazil.
But when somebody with this attitude gets into a position where he could launch cruise missiles (which is what happened) we really have to take care.
No offense.

To me it sounds like thinking the opposite direction of the way i think but - ok!
I try to put myself into your shoes and understand what you mean. And i have a feeling that i actually do understand. It's more or less a question of definition.
If person A has made an observation that causes him to make a conclusion X.
And person B has made an observation that causes him to make a conclusion Y.
Let's say that X and Y are excluding each other. Like A sais the Sheriff was shot by his own wife and B sais that the Sheriff was shot by the citie's mayor.
(Already at this point we have a lot of presuppositions by the way. For example we do not take in account that the sheriff's wife could have been the citie's mayor. Let's assume we can take this for granted.)
Both are convienced that they 'know' who shot the Sheriff.
Following your definition one has knowledge and one has only belief.
We can say that from a logical perspective one of the two MUST be wrong. This is the one thing we DO know, because we can deduct it logically.
Now one of the two dies before they can be heard in a trial.
The whitness that will be heard will now say that he knows who shot the sheriff. WE however know that the probability that he is right is only fifty percent. Even if he swears on the bible because he knows that he knows - his knowledge has a fifty percent chance to be only a belief.
That means who ever the judge will sentence to death has a fifty percent chance to be innocent.
The philosophical problem here is that if you know about all that, which means you don't have 'objective' truth, but at least you have a less subjective truth then the two whitnesses, you have to take all these things in account.
And based on these facts you should be very careful before you sentence somebody to death.
Which is what happens all the time, and which is the reproach of richfm.
People take for granted that what they know has to be assumed 'knowledge' and thus is true, and when they meet somebody whose knowledge pile is contradictive to their own they will go and kill him.

The difference between your concept and Descartes' is:
To Descartes: We have to consider every 'knowledge' a belief. For demanding the status of knowledge for a belief, something has to be substantially verified on all levels we can possibly think of.
To you: We can consider all knowledge we have knowledge as long as it is not proven wrong.
The great danger that comes with your concept is: All the mistaken 'knowledge' will be taken as a basis for false decisions.
Like killing people.
Remember i said there have been shitloads of false myths about jewish conspiracies during many centuries. Do you have any idea how many jews were killed long time before the holocaust because of these myths?
Genocides typically begin with pogroms that are triggered by news about 'facts' that in rhetrospective turn out to be whether a complete lie or just totally exaggerated.
The Tutsi in Ruanda, or the Tamil population in Sri Lanka, or the jews all over the world during the centuries - they all are victims of so called truth. So called knowledge.
Your attitude is totally harmless when you think about what is the capital of Brazil.
But when somebody with this attitude gets into a position where he could launch cruise missiles (which is what happened) we really have to take care.
No offense.

I was talking about the idea of knowledge, not the consequence of knowing which have nothing to do with the the idea of knowledge.

Hi again,

I think sometimes it may be reasonable to contemplate the consequences of Knowing. For example:

A man is married to a woman. The man knows something as a Truth (maybe that their child should act in a certain way - you know an ethic thing). The wife disagrees. The husband insists. They end up fighting all the time. They divorce. The divorce is a mess. Both go bankrupt with lawyer fees. Now the husband no longer has time to think about Truth, since he has to pay off his lawyers, alimony, child support, and doesn't have a place to live. In retrospect, waybe compromise would have been a better approach.

Sometimes, one has to learn lessons the hard way. But these lessons may be the only ones that really count - and indeed they may have to be experienced.

Rich

I was talking about the idea of knowledge, not the consequence of knowing which have nothing to do with the the idea of knowledge.

It is not true that knowledge and belief are independent of each other, as you imply I believe.

As I said, if you know, then you also believe. But, it is not true that if you believe, then you also know. So, whatever you know, you also believe, but it is not true that whatever you believe, you also know.

But this is how we use the terms, "know" and "believe". It is not my view, or anyone's view. It is what those term mean in English, and what "wissen" and "glauben" mean in German too.

As I have pointed out, there is no mistaken knowledge. It is impossible. What there can be, of course, is the mistaken belief that one knows what one does not know. But, how is that a defect in the concept of knowledge that people may believe that they know, but be mistaken, and not know at all? What would you do? Ban people from saying that they know anything? Even that would not mean that they do not know things. Banning the word cannot ban the thing the word means.

I didn't say we should not consider the consequences. I said we should not mix them up with an investigation into the concept of knowledge.

Hi,

Knowledge seems to be multi-dimensional and the consequences of certain actions can be considered knowledge, which feeds back upon itself. And thus we all learn.

Rich

I don't understand what you are saying, I am afraid. How can the consequences of actions be considered knowledge? I suppose you are using the term, "knowledge" as synonymous with "experience". But I thought we were talking about "propositional knowledge" as in knowing that the capital of Ecuador is Quito. Weren't we?

What I am is saying is that knowledge affects knowledge, so Truths affect Truths, until someone realizes there aren't any. BTW, the government of Equador moved the capital of Ecuador a few minutes ago. So you are wrong.

Rich

You would have to explain to me what you have in mind by the first sentence. As it is, I can imagine a number of things you might (or might not) have in mind. Of course there are truths. By the way, why do you spell the word with a capital 'T".

If the capital was moved, it is surprising, but, after all, what I said was that the capital of Ecuador was Quito more than a few minutes ago. And, since it was, I was not wrong. If what you tell me is true (lower case 't') then if I now stated that the capital is Quito, then I would be wrong. But I was not wrong when I state it, was I?

Sorry, they moved it back to Quito a few minutes ago. Tough to keep up with all of these truths that are floating around.

Rich

Fine, then I am not wrong.

In fact, you were. The fact is that talking about statements being true or false, and about knowing they are true or false, makes perfect sense.

I am not sure whether I am right or wrong because things are always changing. However, the last available information that I received via the speed of light, indicates that Quito is again the capital of Equador! So, I may have been right or wrong when I told you that Quite was no longer the capital of Equador, and it may or may not be the capital right now. I have not idea. Everything is always changing, so it is really rough to nail anything down. I don't even know what my net worth is.




For some people yes, for other people no. I gave up on trying to determine what is true or false a long time ago - except when the card company tries to hit me with a service fee, at which time, I jump right back into the game, for sure.

We can talk about truth. It is something to do, and lots of fun for me.

Thanks.

Rich

Perhaps you had better settle on one argument at a time for your view. Else, you make serious discussion impossible; or are you serious about it at all?

Why? Because that is the way professors teach it in school. Life is much different. Ever been in a courtroom?

Truth is tricky - since it is always moving.

Rich

No, because that is the only way to make progress in dealing with an issue. Yes, I have been in a courtroom where there are strict rules of procedure as well as of evidence, which the judge, if he is any good, enforces. If not, there is sure to be an appeal, or a mistrial.