defining truth

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

pondfish
 
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2010 09:09 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Truth seekers end up with a belief eventually. Unless they cross over then they know they do not exist.

Truth can only be relative to who you are. When you do not exist . truth shows itself.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2010 11:01 pm
@Derek M,
Derek M;141376 wrote:
True. The "Gettier problem", at least, seems to demand we tack on another condition.


Maybe. At least until we have some handle on Gettier, we should stick to JTB as only necessary conditions.
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2010 10:04 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;141423 wrote:
Maybe. At least until we have some handle on Gettier, we should stick to JTB as only necessary conditions.


If you require certainty for justification, Gettier cases cannot manifest themselves. Just throwing that out there. Wink
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2010 10:08 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;141573 wrote:
If you require certainty for justification, Gettier cases cannot manifest themselves. Just throwing that out there. Wink


Yes. If the only justification you permit is deductive justification, but not inductive justification, the Gettier problem does not arise. But that would have the disadvantage of there being no scientific knowledge. That is quite a price to pay.
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2010 10:27 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;141574 wrote:
But that would have the disadvantage of there being no scientific knowledge. That is quite a price to pay.


That's hilarious! As if what we call scientific beliefs, knowledge or whatever, will suddenly make the planes drop from the sky, copper no longer conduct, and so on. It's not really a big deal at all. The only price will be paid in dogma.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2010 10:55 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;141580 wrote:
That's hilarious! As if what we call scientific beliefs, knowledge or whatever, will suddenly make the planes drop from the sky, copper no longer conduct, and so on. It's not really a big deal at all. The only price will be paid in dogma.


All I meant was that since scientific knowledge is largely inductive knowledge, if we deny that there is inductive knowledge, that will imply that we cannot know, for instance, that Mars is the fourth planet. But since we do know that Mars is the fourth planet, we do have scientific knowledge. Nothing to do with planes dropping out to the sky. Funny what people find funny.
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2010 11:29 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;141591 wrote:
But since we do know that Mars is the fourth planet, we do have scientific knowledge.


You're begging the question. If I'm right, we don't know that. It's simply the most likely belief based on current evidence. I think the problem you have with admitting that you don't know Mars is the fourth planet is that you think it means any guess is as good as any other or that we can just make up whatever facts we like. That's not the case, however. It's not black and white, either certain knowledge or complete skepticism. It's not a slippery slope. You just need to learn to live with subtlety.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2010 11:35 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;141605 wrote:
You're begging the question. If I'm right, we don't know that. It's simply the most likely belief based on current evidence. I think the problem you have with admitting that you don't know Mars is the fourth planet is that you think it means any guess is as good as any other or that we can just make up whatever facts we like. That's not the case, however. It's not black and white, either certain knowledge or complete skepticism. It's not a slippery slope. You just need to learn to live with subtlety.


If scientific knowledge is not knowledge, then what is it? I think that we know more than we did 100 years ago, and that we will know more 100 years from now than we do now. If you think so too, then where do you think that all this knowledge came from? Of course, you may not think we know more now than 100 years ago. But I would find that strange. (I might even wonder where you had been).
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2010 12:11 pm
@pondfish,
pondfish;141403 wrote:
Truth seekers end up with a belief eventually. Unless they cross over then they know they do not exist.

Truth can only be relative to who you are. When you do not exist . truth shows itself.


:bigsmile:i am well informed on boeddhism. Ego-destruction is not neccesary. A big Ego is like a pair of Ray Bans in the dark. Truth is a common opinion; who are we Thinker-bells to warn technic Petr zZPan +

Psh:a-thought::a-thought:
 
Derek M
 
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2010 02:31 pm
@Holiday20310401,
I don't understand how you can be certain of a deductive inference. They either stand on premises which have not been demonstrated deductively, or else are circular.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2010 03:24 pm
@Derek M,
Derek M;141659 wrote:
I don't understand how you can be certain of a deductive inference. They either stand on premises which have not been demonstrated deductively, or else are circular.


I just mean, deductively "certain". Which is to say that necessarily, a deductively valid argument that has true premises has a true conclusion. I don't mean anything epistemic by "certain". Do not be afraid.
 
Fido
 
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2010 03:48 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;141605 wrote:
You're begging the question. If I'm right, we don't know that. It's simply the most likely belief based on current evidence. I think the problem you have with admitting that you don't know Mars is the fourth planet is that you think it means any guess is as good as any other or that we can just make up whatever facts we like. That's not the case, however. It's not black and white, either certain knowledge or complete skepticism. It's not a slippery slope. You just need to learn to live with subtlety.

What is missing from your thoughts and Ken's is the matter of perspective, that true must always be true to some one, and who is counting is as important as what is counted... Truth is a form of relationship, and truth means because we are...What is the point of asking what do we know and how do we know it when the correct answer to both questions is that survival depends upon sufficient truth, and no survival equals no truth...
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Sun 21 Mar, 2010 07:51 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;141610 wrote:
If scientific knowledge is not knowledge, then what is it?


Scientific beliefs. Some beliefs are better tested than others. Quantum mechanics is extremely well tested. String theory is not.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 21 Mar, 2010 08:07 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;141869 wrote:
Scientific beliefs. Some beliefs are better tested than others. Quantum mechanics is extremely well tested. String theory is not.


Yes, all of knowledge is belief. But not only belief. After all, some beliefs are not true, but all of knowledge is true. But if there is knowledge, then there must be belief.
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Sun 21 Mar, 2010 08:15 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;141872 wrote:
Yes, all of knowledge is belief. But not only belief. After all, some beliefs are not true, but all of knowledge is true. But if there is knowledge, then there must be belief.


I agree. What's your point?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 21 Mar, 2010 08:17 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;141875 wrote:
I agree. What's your point?


Because when I said there was scientific knowledge, you denied it, and said there was only scientific belief. But that is false.
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Sun 21 Mar, 2010 08:24 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;141876 wrote:
Because when I said there was scientific knowledge, you denied it, and said there was only scientific belief. But that is false.


Alright, so you say it's false. What's your argument or evidence? Why do I have the feeling that your only argument is going to be you acting all flabbergasted and incredulous? "What?! You mean we don't know Mars is..." :sarcastic:
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 21 Mar, 2010 08:57 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;141880 wrote:
Alright, so you say it's false. What's your argument or evidence? Why do I have the feeling that your only argument is going to be you acting all flabbergasted and incredulous? "What?! You mean we don't know Mars is..." :sarcastic:


Well, I must admit I was wondering why you thought you don't know that Mars is the fourth planet? Or, that you were born and had parents, and that these were only beliefs. Have you any particular reason except for empty skepticism? After all, most people know these things. Why don't you? And you have not answered my earlier question of whether you think that we know more than we did 100 years ago. I would think it strange if you didn't think so. For example, 100 years ago we did not know there was going to be a Second World War. But now we do. Don't we?
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Sun 21 Mar, 2010 09:43 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;141888 wrote:
After all, most people know these things. Why don't you?


Your way of philosophizing is odd. You start from a conclusion "most people know these things" and then work backward from there. If I just accept that people know things about the world then what's left to argue about? You're right because you say so.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 21 Mar, 2010 10:02 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;141903 wrote:
Your way of philosophizing is odd. You start from a conclusion "most people know these things" and then work backward from there. If I just accept that people know things about the world then what's left to argue about? You're right because you say so.


But don't they? If you think that most people do not know they were born, why would you think so? And, I'll ask you again. If you don't think we know more than we did 100 years ago, why do you not? Of course, you can decide just not to use the term "know" anymore. But why would you do so. It would be like refusing to use the term, "red" to describe the color of fire-engines.But why would anyone do that?
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/25/2020 at 02:39:21