For all you know? Why would you say that, I wonder. Would you say that for all you know I might be a robot manipulated by a mad genius?

I did not say that I was certain that I had ten fingers, beyond the possibility of error. All I said was that I know I have ten fingers. That just implies that I am not in error, and that there is no real possibility of error. Knowing is different from certainty. Telling me that it is possible that I am mistaken about something tells me I am not certain about it. It does not tell me that I do not know it is true.

OK then. We make different assumptions and you believe that if you believe their is no "real possibility of error" it is true. I believe that since you believe something is true and since i can only perceive truth and that truth is an undefined term and since i am relying on my concept of truth that as undefined can only be understood to me as it can not be defined and communicable i can not be certain. As a skeptic i believe that knowledge can only be attained about a certainty and you as whatever believe that knowledge can be attained by something being probable. I can handle not being certain. its no big deal. I am proud that i make less assumptions than you do. I view assumptions as a big part of what is holding humanity back for on the most part assumptions end a debate before a good answer is reached.

What is that critical thinking term for accepting the first satisfactory answer instead of continuing till you have the best answer? whatever it is i try not to assume/do that.

Why would you think "truth" is undefined. Its definition is right there in the dictionary. And Aristotle defined it: He wrote, "To say what is true is to say that what is, is; and to say what is not, is not". What is the matter with that?

I can handle not being certain too. But I think we know a lot of things, don't you? But we are certain of very few, if any. If knowledge can be only certain, then there is no scientific knowledge, and no one knows that water is H20, and that the Sun is a star. I didn't know that. And, if there is no knowledge, then people do not know more than they used to 100 years ago. Not many people would believe that. For example, 100 years ago, no one knew that Barack Obama would be the president of the United States. But now everyone knows that. Even you.

Sure water is 2 parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. So whats are they? molecules? and they are? combination of atoms. and atoms are? oh i guess we do not know what water is as well as we thought. It is cool as heck though that water is burnt hydrogen and oxygen and all you have to do is separate them and they will burn again and again.

Sure the suns a star. Hmm whats a star? If you say the scientific definition which is a ball of helium and hydrogen under enough pressure to sustain nuclear fusion i would then have to disagree that our sun is a star because our sun is those things and much more. the sun is a star in the sense that we label it a star. any further explanation is theoretical at best.


yes i agree we know more things now than we did but i also know that things we know have a way of being wrong. This all boils down to me having a higher standard of what is knowledge. As for Obama being president some would argue that Nostradamus saw that coming more than 100 years ago(joke. i do not even consider this) lol. But everything we know is as i have stated at most probable.

But what have the further questions about the nature of molecules, or the nature of stars to do with the fact that water is H20, and the Sun is a star? I don't understand the connection. Why can't we know the Sun is a star without knowing what a star is? One thing at a time. I don't have to know everything in order to know something. No wonder you think we cannot know anything if you assume that in order to know something you have to know everything. Where did you ever get that assumption from? I thought you didn't like assumptions, anyway.

Yes, you certainly do have a high standard for knowledge. It is certainty. I wonder why you assume (there we go again!) that in order to know, you have to be certain. Just as you assume that in order to know something, you have to know everything. For someone who does not like assumptions, you sure make a lot of them.

We cannot know what is wrong, although we can believe we know what is wrong. But if we do know it, it is true. No one can know what is false. that is not how the term "know" works.

Why would you think "truth" is undefined. Its definition is right there in the dictionary. And Aristotle defined it: He wrote, "To say what is true is to say that what is, is; and to say what is not, is not". What is the matter with that?

I can handle not being certain too. But I think we know a lot of things, don't you? But we are certain of very few, if any. If knowledge can be only certain, then there is no scientific knowledge, and no one knows that water is H20, and that the Sun is a star. I didn't know that. And, if there is no knowledge, then people do not know more than they used to 100 years ago. Not many people would believe that. For example, 100 years ago, no one knew that Barack Obama would be the president of the United States. But now everyone knows that. Even you.

OK well in your new "why cant we know the sun is a star without knowing what a star is" you need to go back and reask "do not we know more now than we did 100 years ago?". my new answer would be no we do not. 100 years ago whatever label was given to the sun was just as accurate as our current un-understood label. What i gather from your reply is we dont know what a star is but we know what we call it.

The further questions about the nature of a molecule applies because you said that the sun being a star and water being H2O was scientific fact. For something to be scientific it must explain how/why something happens and adhear to the scientific method. calling the sun a star is the act of labeling and has nothing to do with science.

Ok i am not assuming i have to know everything to know something. you are assuming that knowing something is as simple as labeling it. You must know everything. We should stop because you mare starting to forget what you have said and are contradicting yourself.

Hmm I must ponder why i assume that to know something knowing all of it is important. So to recap you believe that almost if not everything is uncertain. You also believe that by labeling something you can have knowledge about it. Your definition of knowledge is more lax than any other i can find. The problem seems to be that the word fact is thrown around. when i think fact i think true. apparently you think probable. I like my knowledge to be true and not probably true.

We can go with your definition of knowledge if you like. Just know that then knowledge will be as meaningless as every other word describing something probable or in current regard as probable. to you knowledge seams like just another word to misuse. to me it is the highest thing a man can hope to attain. enjoy your half-butt knowledge. I will follow the sun example and create a new word. How about.....trueknowledge. Us skeptics believe that attaining true knowledge at humans current level of perception is impossible.

Definition

Trueknowledge: Knowing something for certain.

---------- Post added 04-23-2010 at 01:55 PM ----------



the definition of truth is 90+ definitions. find me a single sentance to define truth in a satisfactory manner and you will have done what no other has done.

So you like Aristotle's definition. which is basicaly truth is true and not true is not true. that clears it up. Do you not know how wrong Aristotle was about a lot of things?

As I pointed out earlier, we now know Obama is president of the United States in 2010. We did not know that 100 years ago. Therefore, we know something now we did not know 100 years ago. We know today most of the composition of the human genome. But we did not know that 100 years ago. Therefore, we know something today that we did not know 100 years ago. Do you want me to go on?

Aristotle does not say truth is true and not true (basically or otherwise). That would make no sense. If you want to know what Aristotle said truth was, you will have to reread what I said he said. And yes, that seems exactly the definition of "truth". If you don't think so, then you ought to say what you object to. Aristotle has been wrong about a number of things. But, of course, that does not mean he is wrong about what truth is.

Knowledge does not describe anything probable or improbable. To say that I know that some proposition is true is to say that I believe it is true, that my belief is justified, and that it is true. If it is only probably true then, of course, I don't know it. For me to know it, it has to be true.

I don't know what true knowledge is , and you will have to tell me what it is. But I know that Barak Obama is president of the United States in 2010. Whether that is true knowledge I have no idea since I don't know what that would be.

well as far as Obama goes it is not certain that he is the president at all.

It seems that no one would bother to propose materialism or idealism unless they were first confronted with the mind/body problem or some variation thereof.

Where did I say I was certain that Obama is president? I didn't say that. I don't think it is certain, since I don't think that anything is certain. Another assumption you have just made! You don't practice what you preach, do you?

As I pointed out earlier, we now know Obama is president of the United States in 2010. We did not know that 100 years ago. Therefore, we know something now we did not know 100 years ago. We know today most of the composition of the human genome. But we did not know that 100 years ago. Therefore, we know something today that we did not know 100 years ago. Do you want me to go on?

Knowledge does not describe anything probable or improbable. To say that I know that some proposition is true is to say that I believe it is true, that my belief is justified, and that it is true. If it is only probably true then, of course, I don't know it. For me to know it, it has to be true.