As I noted, no one can consistently verify they aren't mistaken about a subject we deem knowledge. This is not humanly possible. According to you, there is no way I can say I knew the vase was on the table upon leaving for work, because, of course, I took my eyes off the vase. We can extrapolate this to nearly anything.

What things do you think you know ? It seems any example you give I could apply your logic and say, "You only believe/think you know". Seems like a waste of a word to me, unless we all agree we cannot know anything, and then we've just deemed it as some metaphysical notion and discussion is over.



Yes, as stated, new knowledge can come about with new information, as my medieval geometer example illustrates.

Keeping that in mind, how are we to assuredly say we know anything when we could in fact be wrong? The medieval geometers believed squaring a circle was scientific knowledge. They were wrong. You can say they didn't "know", but then, as I mentioned, we could realistically say we don't know anything (because 1,000 years down the road, someone could show we were wrong). Should we have to cover our asses about every topic, and never give assurance? Should we really just say we think we know about whatever topic?

That's humble, fine, I'll go with that. Then no one knows anything.

Once again I ask: What else do we have but our empirical observation at any given point in time?

After all, the fact that we might be mistaken is no reason at all to suppose that we are mistaken. I might (I suppose) be mistaken that I was born, but that is no reason to doubt that I was born.

So, my view is that when I believe I know, I will claim to know. And, when I don't believe I know, I won't claim to know.

This is why I would say I know the vase is on the table. I had no reason to doubt it wasn't on the table.



This is exactly what I've been saying the entire time...

But I am puzzled about one thing you said in an earlier post which I meant to mention. You wrote<

According to your logic, I didn't know the vase was on the table during the time period she took the vase off the table for cleaning.

But you didn't know the vase was on the table when it was not on the table. How could you have?

So, my view is that when I believe I know, I will claim to know. And, when I don't believe I know, I won't claim to know.

No one can know if their wife takes the vase off the table 178 times. It's not practical to keep an eye on the vase all day. If I believe/think the vase is on the table with ample justification upon leaving for work, I will say I know. It's really that simple.

Interesting. I almost never use the word I know. If someone asked me where the vase was, I would say "I think it is on the table". I never say I know it is on the table. And if someone asked me whether someone moved the vase, I would say "Not to my knowledge". I cannot think of an instance when I would answer with the very positive sounding "I know". Maybe because of all of my life experiences, I have learned not to express certainty, since it is actually quite unnecessary and leaves options on the table. I do not assume that everything is the same, because to assume makes an as_ of you and me. (I was taught this by my first manager at work).

Rich

But you didn't know the vase was on the table when it was not on the table. How could you have?

Rich,

I believe when one says "know", they should acknowledge all one has is a degree of certainty. Thus, when I state, "I know...", I am not saying that I cannot be wrong. I certainly could. What I am saying is that I have ample justification for a belief in something (a high degree of certainty). Think of it as the well-known JTB, without the T. But just between the two of us, I rarely use "I know" with an authoritative voice either. I usually, like you, say, "I believe", or "I think".

After all, this is how I've always interpreted, "To the best of my knowledge". Certainly all we ever have is what we think we know, "the best" (higher degree of certainty) of our knowledge!

Yes, that which I picture in my mind is generally not well served by the word. In fact, I may add all kinds of adjectives and still fall short.

Each mind has all kinds of ideas that it seeks to share with other minds - and it does the best it can, with the words that the individual minds have agreed upon (reached some consensus). Some languages are better than others, depending upon where you live, to relate (transmit) ideas.

You may think by means of words. I am not you, so I have no idea. As for me, when I am asleep (I do lots of thinking when I am asleep), I only see images in my dreams. No words - that I can recall.

However, when I wake up, and wish to talk about (transmit) the dreams to someone else, I will use words. Words, for me, are transmission signals. When they are heard by someone else, they form new objects within the relationship, and yes indeed these words can be considered concepts at that point. We can talk about the differences in the way one person conceives the concepts that are formed in the relationship, and the way the other person conceives the concepts formed, if we wish. For me, it is not where my interest lies. But reaching exact consensus on the nature of the word can be fun. Look at all of the definitions for a single word in the dictionary!

Rich

To know absolute truth we must go to the ABSOLUTE and have absolute knowledge to me this in an impossible quest, but not a futile one.

The ABSOLUTE is a dynamic ABSOLUTE so Absolute Truth moves and changes and alters all the time in accordance with new situations and challenges such as war and peace

I think you are lying.....So tell me your thoughts, if you have thoughts without words...

Hi,

First off. About this lying thing ... I think you should just cut that out, if you want me to respond. I'll ignore it for now.

Human beings have not evolved yet to communicate (transmit) their thoughts without words. I certainly have thoughts and I attempt to convey them using words - some English, sometimes foreign. But those are the limits. The language grows as the universal mind expands.

Rich

5. We should apply the same criteria to our claims that we know that X as we do to our claims that X. It is reasonable to say now, without qualification, (a) that Paris is still the capital of France, and (b) that we know Paris is still the capital of France. But if we later find that they'd already changed it, we can obviously no longer claim that (a) was true when we said it. So why should we still want to claim that (b) was true when we said it?

Zetherin - I agree that "know" should be used without regard to remote possibilities of falsity. But that does not entitle us to use it retrospectively where something was actually false. Do you see the difference?

Ya; Well....Tell Hume I am a married bachelor, and that accounts for the ticked off condition of my wife 99% of the time...

May I suggest stand-up comedy sometime in your future?

(B) is all we ever have, ABC.




Because humans do not have the capability to know of the remote possibilities of falsity, humans should be entitled to either use "know" retrospectively where something was actually false, or not use it at all. We must use it while admitting some shred of doubt, and we should be able to claim we know even if we find out later it was false. Again, the knowledge would be revised, as knowledge is relative. So, if humans discovered mars was made out of playdo instead of rock 500 years down the road, I would say we had knowledge of Mars being made of rock, yet we were wrong. Because, as I mentioned, if we do not say we held knowledge, then how are we ever to claim any knowledge? 1,000 years from now someone could prove false most things we think we now know. Without the new knowledge from 1,000 years in the future, you would most certainly claim you knew!

What you seem to be arguing is that since we cannot know for certain that when we claim to know, that we might be wrong, that even when we are wrong, we should be able to say we know, or knew. I don't see how the conclusion follows from the premises. It would be like arguing that since we might not be able to keep our promises when we promise to do something, that we should be allowed to promise even when we know we cannot keep our promise.

I'm saying we should be able to state we hold knowledge before the new knowledge is discovered.