I know that I know

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 11:36 am
@Emil,
Emil;128521 wrote:
What reason is there for thinking that (1) is true?

---------- Post added 02-15-2010 at 06:28 PM ----------



ED.


~(~KK > ~K) is equivalent to: It is not the case that not knowing is a necessary condition of not knowing that you know.
 
Scottydamion
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 11:46 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;128531 wrote:
~(~KK > ~K) is equivalent to: It is not the case that not knowing is a necessary condition of not knowing that you know.


Yes, but you are still assuming that this premise is true are you not?
Does it not boil down to the acceptance of your premise since your form is valid?
 
Emil
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 11:48 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;128531 wrote:
~(~KK > ~K) is equivalent to: It is not the case that not knowing is a necessary condition of not knowing that you know.
 
fast
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 12:15 pm
@fast,
Contradiction (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 12:22 pm
@fast,
Two terms are contradictories (or negations) if one or the other must apply to a thing, but both cannot apply to the same thing. On the other hand, two terms are contraries if only one can apply to a thing, but neither applies to some things.

contradictory vs. contrary

Not exactly a great source. I'll try to find a better one.
 
Emil
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 12:49 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;128557 wrote:
Two terms are contradictories (or negations) if one or the other must apply to a thing, but both cannot apply to the same thing. On the other hand, two terms are contraries if only one can apply to a thing, but neither applies to some things.

contradictory vs. contrary

Not exactly a great source. I'll try to find a better one.


Why would you need to, is there any doubt what the terms mean? Though the above explanation is not good since it is about properties of a thing and not about propositions which this thread is about.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 01:43 pm
@Emil,
Emil;128541 wrote:


Even if that is so, what you asked was, What reason is there for thinking that (1) is true?. I have just given you the answer.
 
Scottydamion
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 01:53 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;128582 wrote:
Even if that is so, what you asked was, What reason is there for thinking that (1) is true?. I have just given you the answer.


So the answer is that it is true because it is true?

I see a valid form but what makes it sound?
 
Emil
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 02:54 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;128582 wrote:
Even if that is so, what you asked was, What reason is there for thinking that (1) is true?. I have just given you the answer.


But you have not given me a non-question begging reason. That is what I am looking for. I know of two arguments against the KK-principle, namely the argument from counter-example and the argument from infinite regress.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 08/15/2020 at 02:55:06