Sufficient conditions of knowledge

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 07:50 pm
@fast,
You quoted Aristotle.

The point at hand is the definition of truth. Please, I invite you to define it. Is it anything more than justified belief? If so, how? And in relation to what?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 07:56 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;107455 wrote:
You quoted Aristotle.

The point at hand is the definition of truth. Please, I invite you to define it. Is it anything more than justified belief? If so, how? And in relation to what?


I see nothing wrong with Aristotle's definition. Do you? A more recent variation is the of Alfred Tarski. (The Semantic Definition of "Truth") ' "S" is true' if and only if S. Example:

' "Snow is white" is true ' if and only if snow is white.

The sentence, "Snow is white" is true if and only if snow is white.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 08:07 pm
@fast,
I think his definition is pretty useless for 2009.

I think you have failed to explain how truth is any different from justified belief. I feel like you are dodging the issue. But I don't blame you for that.

"Objective truth" functions like a religious myth. Perhaps you pride yourself on a connection to this o"bjective truth" (convenient fiction). Perhaps you identify with logic as an initiation into a sort of superior knowledge.

This is not meant as an attack. It's part of my psychological epistemology. We are persuaded quite often for "non-logical" reasons. We are mythological status-seeking apes.

Smile
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 08:17 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;107466 wrote:
I think his definition is pretty useless for 2009.

I think you have failed to explain how truth is any different from justified belief. I feel like you are dodging the issue. But I don't blame you for that.

"Objective truth" functions like a religious myth. Perhaps you pride yourself on a connection to this o"bjective truth" (convenient fiction). Perhaps you identify with logic as an initiation into a sort of superior knowledge.

This is not meant as an attack. It's part of my psychological epistemology. We are persuaded quite often for "non-logical" reasons. We are mythological status-seeking apes.

Smile


Why? What happened this year?
As I pointed out, people had justified belief that Earth was flat, but that belief was not true. Doesn't that show that there is a difference between justified belief and justified true belief. I would think that it does. And here is an example for 2009: I had justified belief up to last year that Rio was the capital of Brazil. But I was wrong. Brasileira is the capital. Is that recent enough?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 02:12 am
@kennethamy,
From my point of view you have utterly failed to understand what my objections are. You have not answered them because (it seems) you have not processed them.

If A is true, then B is true. If B is true, then C is true. If A is true, then C is true.

The above is NOT LIKE LIFE. The deeper question is: what makes A true?

The trueness of A is not a one/zero situation. In real life, including philosophical conversation, there is no perfect certainty. There is persuasion and consensus. But it's difficult to persuade those who cannot and those who will not understand.

Smile

---------- Post added 12-02-2009 at 03:51 AM ----------

Who decides if "snow" is "white"? That's the crux. The meaning (signified) of "snow" (the signifier) is derived from consensus/persuasion. It's the same with "white" and "is." Words in themselves are just sounds and letters. Consensus is what makes names "true." Persuasion is what makes statements "true."

And one can be persuaded by pain and pleasure as well as the words and gestures of other human beings.

Formal logic isn't reality, I say.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 07:36 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;107517 wrote:
From my point of view you have utterly failed to understand what my objections are. You have not answered them because (it seems) you have not processed them.

If A is true, then B is true. If B is true, then C is true. If A is true, then C is true.

The above is NOT LIKE LIFE. The deeper question is: what makes A true?

The trueness of A is not a one/zero situation. In real life, including philosophical conversation, there is no perfect certainty. There is persuasion and consensus. But it's difficult to persuade those who cannot and those who will not understand.

Smile

---------- Post added 12-02-2009 at 03:51 AM ----------

Who decides if "snow" is "white"? .


No one decides it, so far as I can tell. We simply discover that snow is white. It might not have been, of course. What make you think that whether snow is white is a product of a decision? Sounds a bit like religion to me. Of course, there are causes of snow's color. Is that what you have in mind?
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 08:50 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;107537 wrote:
No one decides it, so far as I can tell. We simply discover that snow is white. It might not have been, of course. What make you think that whether snow is white is a product of a decision? Sounds a bit like religion to me. Of course, there are causes of snow's color. Is that what you have in mind?
Isn't "snow is white" a kind of short-hand recognition, as opposed to belief, knowledge or truth? Snow has white in it, but any glossy surface does. Snow reflects the light around it, it has shadows throughout. If you were to paint a scene with snow and just put a bunch of white paint where the snow is, it would look cartoonish... that would reveal more about what color snow really is. There would be a revelation of truth... in the Heidegger sort of way, that snow isn't any one color, not that white is offically a color anyway.Smile
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 08:53 am
@fast,
Reconstructo,

If everything is simply justified belief, how do you explain intersubjectivity? How do you explain knowledge (or do you not believe knowledge exists)? Isn't it more likely that we indeed have access to the objective, than that the majority of humans believe that the chemical composition of water is H2O by chance?

If we do not have access to the objective, at all, and reality is simply a construct of our minds, what do you think we are living in? Does each person live in their own mind? This is getting mighty metaphysical, don't you think? Maybe even a bit supersiticious (what you seem adamant against), no?

Quote:

The above is NOT LIKE LIFE. The deeper question is: what makes A true?


Of course it is "like life". It corresponds to reality. Why would we say it's true that snow is white, if we did not think it corresponds with reality? Do you think it's true snow is white? And when you look at snow, in real life, do you think it's white?

Quote:

Who decides if "snow" is "white"? That's the crux. The meaning (signified) of "snow" (the signifier) is derived from consensus/persuasion.


Why do you conclude that because

A.) We have intersubjectivity.

it follows that

B.) Our intersubjectivity doesn't correspond with reality.

Quote:

The trueness of A is not a one/zero situation. In real life, including philosophical conversation, there is no perfect certainty.


Why do you conclude that because

A.) Humans cannot be absolutely certain about anything.

it follows that

B.) Humans cannot know truth.

Quote:
Persuasion is what makes statements "true."


Persuasion does not make anything true. Things are true, or false, regardless of persuasion.

Quote:

If A is true, then B is true. If B is true, then C is true. If A is true, then C is true.


Do you think you just made "If A is true, then C is true" true with persuasion? Or did you discover it was true with inference and were persuaded by the truth?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 08:54 am
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;107550 wrote:
Isn't "snow is white" a kind of short-hand recognition, as opposed to belief, knowledge or truth? Snow has white in it, but any glossy surface does. Snow reflects the light around it, it has shadows throughout. If you were to paint a scene with snow and just put a bunch of white paint where the snow is, it would look cartoonish... that would reveal more about what color snow really is. There would be a revelation of truth... in the Heidegger sort of way, that snow isn't any one color, not that white is offically a color anyway.Smile


Are you saying that new fallen snow is not white? It is hard to tell just what you are saying.

---------- Post added 12-02-2009 at 09:57 AM ----------

Zetherin;107552 wrote:
Reconstructo,





Persuasion does not make anything true. Things are true, or false, regardless of persuasion.



Do you think you just made "If A is true, then C is true" true with persuasion? Or did you discover it was true with inference?



Of course persuasion may make people believe that some proposition is true. That must be what he means.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 09:00 am
@fast,
kennethamy wrote:
Of course persuasion may make people believe that some proposition is true. That must be what he means.

That's not what he means. He means that truth is dependent on persuasion entirely. That is, truth doesn't exist without persuasion. At least, what how I took it. And I think the rest of what he writes supports my interpretation.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 09:09 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;107556 wrote:
That's not what he means. He means that truth is dependent on persuasion entirely. That is, truth doesn't exist without persuasion. At least, what how I took it. And I think the rest of what he writes supports my interpretation.


Sorry. I should have written, "that is what he should mean". I suppose I just cannot understand why anyone would mean that. It is so obviously false, I cannot imagine that anyone would try to persuade me that it is true. (Of course, if he could persuade me that it is true, I suppose that he would conclude that it was true. Is that true? Or am I getting mixed up here?)
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 09:12 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;107553 wrote:
Are you saying that new fallen snow is not white? It is hard to tell just what you are saying.

It has white in it. It reflects the colors around it. If the sky is red, the snow will look pink. When we say snow is white, we're accessing a kind of catalog of simplifications. I saw this Charlie Rose show where experts were talking about vision. One was an Indian who was removing cataracts from the eyes of children. The panel discussed the revelation of his work: that the ability to decipher visual stimulus can develop later than infancy, as long as the patient had some visual stimulus.

I understood this from my experience with drawing and painting, which I've done since I could hold a pencil. Teaching adults to draw has this challenge: that we think we know what the world looks like. We don't realize that we're operating from a catalog of symbols until we start trying to draw. What keeps a person from drawing well, isn't the hand or the eye: it's that they have to let go of what they think things look like. The Indian children had to go the opposite way: they needed to develop this catalog in order to use visual stimulus. Teaching adults to draw demonstrates this point: most of the time, people are processing visual information with a coordinating pattern to organize it.

One of the really mind-blowing parts of the show was that there are two locations in the brain that derive "place." A guy with a rare condition where both these areas were damaged has the problem of being able to see the world around him, but he never knows "where" he is.

To paint snow with any degree of trueness, you'd have to let go of the idea that it's white. You could take a picture of it and blow it up on your computer and see what I mean.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 09:17 am
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;107559 wrote:
It has white in it. It reflects the colors around it. If the sky is red, the snow will look pink. When we say snow is white, we're accessing a kind of catalog of simplifications. I saw this Charlie Rose show where experts were talking about vision. One was an Indian who was removing cataracts from the eyes of children. The panel discussed the revelation of his work: that the ability to decipher visual stimulus can develop later than infancy, as long as the patient had some visual stimulus.

I understood this from my experience with drawing and painting, which I've done since I could hold a pencil. Teaching adults to draw has this challenge: that we think we know what the world looks like. We don't realize that we're operating from a catalog of symbols until we start trying to draw. What keeps a person from drawing well, isn't the hand or the eye: it's that they have to let go of what they think things look like. The Indian children had to go the opposite way: they needed to develop this catalog in order to use visual stimulus. Teaching adults to draw demonstrates this point: most of the time, people are processing visual information with a coordinating pattern to organize it.

One of the really mind-blowing parts of the show was that there are two locations in the brain that derive "place." A guy with a rare condition where both these areas were damaged has the problem of being able to see the world around him, but he never knows "where" he is.

To paint snow with any degree of trueness, you'd have to let go of the idea that it's white. You could take a picture of it and blow it up on your computer and see what I mean.


So, new fallen snow is not white? Then what color do you believe it is? If I were to paint a picture of a roof with new fallen snow on it, I would certainly paint it white. And when I have looked at roofs covered with new fallen snow, they are certainly white- well, white as snow!
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 09:23 am
@fast,
Arjuna wrote:
To paint snow with any degree of trueness, you'd have to let go of the idea that it's white. You could take a picture of it and blow it up on your computer and see what I mean.

Why do you think that what we call white, is not white, truly? Why would we have to let go of the idea of white, to know truly that snow is white?

Do you believe snow is white? Do you think it's by chance that most people agree that snow is white? Why do you think they agree on such a thing? One possibility is that it is true that snow is white. What do you think?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 09:35 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;107562 wrote:
Why do you think that what we call white, is not white, truly? Why would we have to let go of the idea of white, to know truly that snow is white?

Do you believe snow is white? Do you think it's by chance that most people agree that snow is white? Why do you think they agree on such a thing? One possibility is that it is true that snow is white. What do you think?



If I were teaching a foreigner the English term, "white", or if I were trying to teach a little child the meaning of "white", I would certainly use as examples of the color white, the color of new fallen snow. Wouldn't you? Wouldn't Arjuna? Why do you think the Seven Dwarfs called her, "Snow White"? After all, if snow is not white, then nothing is white.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 09:45 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;107562 wrote:
Why do you think that what we call white, is not white, truly? Why would we have to let go of the idea of white, to know truly that snow is white?

Do you believe snow is white? Do you think it's by chance that most people agree that snow is white? Why do you think they agree on such a thing? One possibility is that it is true that snow is white. What do you think?
It's funny, but yea: white is white, but snow is a bunch of tones from black to grey, to white, with a pale colors that come from reflections. It's fascinating that people agree that snow is white. Like if you take a hundred people at random and tell them to draw a human, you'd end up with page after page of the same figure: a circle for the head, and straight lines indicating trunk and limbs: a stick man. If you went to a crowded place and started drawing humans, you'd see that the stick man is a symbol... our hundred people are drawing an internal image that underlies their visual information about what humans look like. The fact that most of them draw the same image is something I can't explain.

The idea that snow is white is just like the stick-man. See what I mean?

kennethamy;107561 wrote:
So, new fallen snow is not white? Then what color do you believe it is? If I were to paint a picture of a roof with new fallen snow on it, I would certainly paint it white. And when I have looked at roofs covered with new fallen snow, they are certainly white- well, white as snow!
There are situations where snow on a roof is purely white... if it's noon on a sunny day, so the snow is reflecting the sun... no shadows, only light... which is what white is: all light. So sometimes snow is white. Snow on a roof on a sunny day: that would be an interesting picture... very stark.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 09:53 am
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;107569 wrote:

There are situations where snow on a roof is purely white... if it's noon on a sunny day, so the snow is reflecting the sun... no shadows, only light... which is what white is: all light. So sometimes snow is white. Snow on a roof on a sunny day: that would be an interesting picture... very stark.


Of course. Dirty snow is not white either. So what? Snow is white means just that snow is white under normal conditions for seeing snow. After it rains, snow turns a slushy gray. Does that mean the snow is not white? No, it does not. But you seemed to mean something quite different when you denied that snow is white. You seemed to deny that even in normal conditions of observation, that snow is not white. That would be startling, but false. What you now seem to mean is mundane, but true.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 09:59 am
@fast,
Arjuna wrote:

It's fascinating that people agree that snow is white. Like if you take a hundred people at random and tell them to draw a human, you'd end up with page after page of the same figure: a circle for the head, and straight lines indicating trunk and limbs: a stick man. If you went to a crowded place and started drawing humans, you'd see that the stick man is a symbol... our hundred people are drawing an internal image that underlies their visual information about what humans look like. The fact that most of them draw the same image is something I can't explain.


It's called intersubjectivity, and it's nothing you can't explain. You just have to trust your good reason. What's the most likely possibility here? That everyone is drawing the same sort of stick-figure by chance, or all those people understand and think it's true that that is what a human looks like. This is only something you cannot explain if you choose to deny the most reasonable answer, and that answer being that we do have access to the objective; we can know what is true and not true.

The fact that we can agree at all through the articulation of thought is fascinating, yes, but it's not something that doesn't make sense.

Quote:

There are situations where snow on a roof is purely white... if it's noon on a sunny day, so the snow is reflecting the sun... no shadows, only light... which is what white is: all light. So sometimes snow is white. Snow on a roof on a sunny day: that would be an interesting picture... very stark.


We can only distinguish what we can see. And when we call something white, we are certainly speaking about the color on the visible spectrum that we call white. Wouldn't you agree? We are seeing the same white light reflected off the snow.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 10:07 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;107570 wrote:
Of course. Dirty snow is not white either. So what? Snow is white means just that snow is white under normal conditions for seeing snow. After it rains, snow turns a slushy gray. Does that mean the snow is not white? No, it does not. But you seemed to mean something quite different when you denied that snow is white. You seemed to deny that even in normal conditions of observation, that snow is not white. That would be startling, but false. What you now seem to mean is mundane, but true.
Are you saying that snow is white even if it's grey?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 11:33 am
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;107573 wrote:
Are you saying that snow is white even if it's grey?


No. I am saying that new fallen snow is white. (I have said that several times).
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/20/2021 at 02:20:16