Can we know that something doesn't exist?

@hue-man,

Night Ripper wrote:

If you've got a problem with my reasoning then show it. So far you've just made a bunch of claims and then floundered when asked to back them up with some kind of reasoning. If you don't understand relativity theory then you shouldn't be making assertions about it.

The point is that there are things we can know. You are wrong if you think we cannot know things. Even if you believe justification has a connection with certainty, we can be certain about many things.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;136206 wrote:

The point is that there are things we can know.

No, the point is that kennethamy irrationally believes that somethings are physically impossible despite there being no evidence to support that belief.

Zetherin;136206 wrote:

You are wrong if you think we cannot know things. Even if you believe justification has a connection with certainty, we can be certain about many things.

I already said we know 1 + 1 = 2. Why would you continue to be under the impression that I think we can't know anything?

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;136204 wrote:

Then perhaps you should learn enough about it so you can defend your own beliefs?

If you've got a problem with my reasoning then show it. So far you've just made a bunch of claims and then floundered when asked to back them up with some kind of argument. If you don't understand relativity theory then you shouldn't be making assertions about it.

OK. I surrender about relativity theory. Let's turn to my statement that Luxembourg could not be the victor in a war with present day China. Do you think I know that? (I have not provoked a war between Luxembourg and China to observe what will happen. But maybe you know that too).

@hue-man,

Well, in response to me saying that you ought to seek out truth you said:

Night Ripper wrote:

I also want to live forever but I'm not out looking for a way to achieve what seems highly unlikely.

Which, it seems, means you think that discovering truth is highly unlikely.

You also went on to say:

Quote:

As Vico puts it, "humans know what they make by hand". We make systems of logic. We didn't make the universe. If you want certainty then stick to logic.

Which made me think, again, that you didn't believe we had access to truth. Or, at the least, that we could not know facts about the world.

I suppose you confused me.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;136212 wrote:

No, the point is that kennethamy irrationally believes that somethings are physically impossible despite there being no evidence to support that belief.

I already said we know 1 + 1 = 2. Why would you continue to be under the impression that I think we can't know anything?

Because he is "in the grip of a theory", of course. It is a philosophical disease. Look around you on this forum. How many people yield to counterexamples. If they did, they would not take the kind of view they take in the first place? And they certainly won't yield after they have committed themselves to something so clearly absurd. They will hold on for dear life lest they be forced to admit such a thing to themselves. For example he does not believe that it is physically impossible for Luxembourg to win a war with China because there is no evidence to support such a belief. Now, what could be more absurd than that? And how could he admit, even to himself, that he really believes such a thing?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;136215 wrote:

OK. I surrender about relativity theory. Let's turn to my statement that Luxembourg could not be the victor in a war with present day China. Do you think I know that? (I have not provoked a war between Luxembourg and China to observe what will happen. But maybe you know that too).

Off the top of my head, perhaps Luxembourg has been researching biological weapons? It wouldn't matter how big China's army was in that case if it was a deadly virus. Regardless of how it happens, in what way is there anything physically impossible about it? Please give me a better example.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;136225 wrote:

Off the top of my head, perhaps Luxembourg has been researching biological weapons? It wouldn't matter how big China's army was in that case if it was a deadly virus. Regardless of how it happens, in what way is there anything physically impossible about it? Please give me a better example.

I really cannot give you a better example, but what makes you think it is possible that Luxembourg has been researching biological weapons? I don't think that is possible.

I thought I said why it is physically impossible. Luxembourg has no military forces, and China's are enormous.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;136229 wrote:

I really cannot give you a better example, but what makes you think it is possible that Luxembourg has been researching biological weapons? I don't think that is possible.

I thought I said why it is physically impossible. Luxembourg has no military forces, and China's are enormous.

The thing is, he will always say, "What if", despite there being no evidence to the contrary. Since he cannot be absolutely certain, he does not believe one can know that Luxembourg would lose in a war against China.

This stuff is incredibly odd. There's no way he say things like this in everyday life. It must just be when he is philosophizing.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;136217 wrote:

Or, at the least, that we could not know facts about the world.

Oh, that I believe. That is, unless you can convince me that there is no difference in meaning between "I know x" and "I have good reason to believe x".

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;136235 wrote:

Oh, that I believe. That is, unless you can convince me that there is no difference in meaning between "I know x" and "I have good reason to believe x".

You sincerely believe we cannot know facts about the world? :listening:

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;136229 wrote:

what makes you think it is possible that Luxembourg has been researching biological weapons? I don't think that is possible.

Luxembourg is a rich country, are you really claiming that it's impossible that they could be researching biological weapons? Perhaps such weapons are being developed by a revolutionary group who will take over the country in order to instigate war with China.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;136229 wrote:

I really cannot give you a better example, but what makes you think it is possible that Luxembourg has been researching biological weapons? I don't think that is possible.

Why isn't it possible? What law of nature is being violated? Is it because you've never seen anything like that? Are we back to "I have never observed x therefore x is physically impossible"?

---------- Post added 03-04-2010 at 09:38 PM ----------

Zetherin;136236 wrote:

You sincerely believe we cannot know facts about the world? :listening:

Yes. Do you sincerely believe that there is no difference in meaning between "I know x" and "I have good reason to believe x"?

I have good reason to believe many things about the world. I just wouldn't claim I know those things.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;136212 wrote:

No, the point is that kennethamy irrationally believes that somethings are physically impossible despite there being no evidence to support that belief.

I already said we know 1 + 1 = 2. Why would you continue to be under the impression that I think we can't know anything?

Zetherin and Night Ripper, I know something that I cannot experience in any way. I know that each of you are reading this post right...now.

Samm

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;136235 wrote:

Oh, that I believe. That is, unless you can convince me that there is no difference in meaning between "I know x" and "I have good reason to believe x".

Of course they don't mean the same thing. I can have very good reason to believe x, and not know that x, whenever x is not true. What has that to do with it?

---------- Post added 03-04-2010 at 09:08 PM ----------

ughaibu;136238 wrote:

Luxembourg is a rich country, are you really claiming that it's impossible that they could be researching biological weapons? Perhaps such weapons are being developed by a revolutionary group who will take over the country in order to instigate war with China.

A revolutionary group is not Luxembourg. Yes, it is certainly epistemically impossible. And physically impossible since I don't believe that Lux. is rich enough to support such a program, not do I believe it is psychologically or socially, or politically possible, that it would. Have you any contrary reason (I mean besides bare possibility).

@hue-man,

Night Ripper wrote:

Yes. Do you sincerely believe that there is no difference in meaning between "I know x" and "I have good reason to believe x"?

No I do not sincerely believe that. Since to know X means that X is true, but to have good reason to believe X does not necessarily (that is, it may or may not) mean X is true. Justified belief is not the same as knowledge.

Quote:

I have good reason to believe many things about the world. I just wouldn't claim I know those things.

Then you don't have to. You're confusing claiming to know, with knowing. You never have to claim to know anything if you are uncertain, but if you have a justified belief about something and it is true, you know.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;136268 wrote:

physically impossible since I don't believe that Lux. is rich enough to support such a program, not do I believe it is psychologically or socially, or politically possible, that it would. Have you any contrary reason (I mean besides bare possibility).

Are you saying that physical impossibility is a matter of personal belief?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;136268 wrote:

Of course they don't mean the same thing. I can have very good reason to believe x, and not know that x, whenever x is not true. What has that to do with it?

Are you going to answer the question I addressed to you?

kennethamy;136229 wrote:

I really cannot give you a better example, but what makes you think it is possible that Luxembourg has been researching biological weapons? I don't think that is possible.

Why isn't it possible? What law of nature is being violated? Is it because you've never seen anything like that? Are we back to "I have never observed x therefore x is physically impossible"?

---------- Post added 03-04-2010 at 10:54 PM ----------

Zetherin;136272 wrote:

No I do not sincerely believe that. Since to know X means that X is true, but to have good reason to believe X does not necessarily (that is, it may or may not) mean X is true. Justified belief is not the same as knowledge.

Whether or not x is true has nothing to do with the meaning of what's being said. How could it possibly?

Zetherin;136272 wrote:

Then you don't have to. You're confusing claiming to know, with knowing. You never have to claim to know anything if you are uncertain, but if you have a justified belief about something and it is true, you know.

No, I'm not. You're just taking a figure of speech literally. Let me reiterate: I have good reason to believe many things about the world, many of those things may be true but none of those things are knowledge.

@hue-man,

Night Ripper wrote:

Whether or not x is true has nothing to do with the meaning of what's being said. How could it possibly?

When did I say that...?

Quote:

I have good reason to believe many things about the world, many of those things may be true but none of those things are knowledge.

If you have a justified belief, and what you have a justified belief for is true, it is knowledge. That's what you're not getting.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;136304 wrote:

If you have a justified belief, and what you have a justified belief for is true, it is knowledge. That's what you're not getting.

It's quite possible, both physically and logically, that Night Ripper rejects the claim that JTB is knowledge. It's certainly a highly problematic claim.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;136304 wrote:

If you have a justified belief, and what you have a justified belief for is true, it is knowledge. That's what you're not getting.

I said "good reason" not "justified" and just having a "good reason" is not "justified". That's why "I know x" and "I have good reason to believe x is true" aren't the same.

---------- Post added 03-04-2010 at 11:16 PM ----------

Why isn't true belief enough for knowledge? Because that wouldn't rule out lucky guesses. True beliefs have to be obtained in the right way. What is the right way? Any way that gives true beliefs. But guessing does give true beliefs sometimes. So it has to be better than 50%. But that includes 51% which is almost as bad as chance. Is that knowledge? At what point does it tip the scale and become knowledge? Why is it that whatever you say will seem arbitrary? If there is no clear line then why hold to the distinction that there is even such a thing as knowledge rather than various degrees of probably true beliefs?

Philosophy Forum

Can we know that something doesn't exist?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know