Knowledge and Belief

[Slapstick]

If something is knowledge, then you can demonstrate it to others. I can demonstrate that 2+2=4. I can demonstrate that the universe is billions of years old. I can demonstrate that the sun is a star.

Belief is something that you are sure is correct. A belief may be true, but it may not be true. I believe there is no fairy fluttering silently behind my head, ready to disappear should I turn around, but I can't prove it.

I believe you have no reason to believe there are fairies fluttering around you. Unless you really want to believe they are. Then I would be more than happy to believe whatever it is you you believe in.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

You actually can't demonstrate that the universe is billions of years old; unless we have invented time travel or time viewing that is literally impossible to do.

You can define what we think is the sun as being a star, but I defy you demonstrate controlled sustainable nuclear fusion in a lab.

You are not actually able to prove that 2+2 must be 4; Peano Arithmetic is incomplete. In what my experience says is reality it seems as though 2+2=4 must be true because otherwise logical identity would be undermined (and that's metaphysically impossible), but I can't actually lay 100% odds on that being true as my experiences might be compromised at some fundamental level. 99.9999999% =/= 100% even if for all practical purposes we can (and probably should) ignore said difference.

MTF

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

If we are participating in a thread titled "Knowledge and Belief", then it is a fact that we are participating in a thread titled "Knowledge and Belief". That's just what "fact" means.

Sure, you're welcome to say such a thing. But I would generally avoid doing so. We all choose our language according to our tastes and worldviews.

If you don't like the word "fact", for whatever weird and secretive reason....

Weird and secretive? What a curious thing to say. It tells me something about you.

I don't. That's why I would never claim something like "(it is a fact that) there are no facts".

Well then why have you brought it up? It does seem like an insignificant little word game, so why are you talking about it?

Indeed. And that will vary depending on the type of fact in question- is it a claim about the visual qualities of a material object ("that shirt is red")? Then we'd better take a look.

So if I say the shirt is red and you say the shirt is green, what do we then know about the color of the shirt?

I know one thing and you know another?

No, no, that can't be right. I'm sure you reject such a notion. For you, only one of us can know the truth of it, yes?

So what do we know about the shirt's color in that situation? Who knows what?

Is is a claim about mathematics? Then we'd better determine the rules of our formal system and perform the relevant calculations.

To me, math knowledge looks like a little game which we play with ourselves. We declare that 1 + 1 = 2. Then we assert that we can know that 1 + 1 = 2.

Pretty unremarkable instance of knowledge, like knowing the rules of chess as contained in a particular chess rulebook.

Indeed, we can never tell, in a moment, whether a given perception is veridical or not. Correspondence only discerns itself through coherence.

Forgive me, but the bolded sentence sounds like something a philosophy student would say who is working his hardest to avoid answering a direct question.

Welcome to the philosophy of perception, my friend.

Ah.

By the way, it's a nonsense sentence. It really is. To start with, correspondence can't discern itself. So far as I know, only people can discern stuff.

The only reason we can discern hallucinations from veridical perceptions at all is because the hallucination does not cohere with the rest of the relevant data (for instance, whether we still see green gnomes the next day after dropping LSD, or by touching the stick that is in the water to see if it really is crooked, as it appears)

Sure. In your world, hallucinations can be uncovered, exposed for what they are, and the hallucinator corrected and gotten back in line with all the obvious truth of things. If only the real world worked that way.

What is the "Miracle of the Sun"? Is that your phrase for the existence of our sun? Lol...

Try googling 'mass hallucinations'.

It would still depend on all the other relevant factors. Perhaps everyone else has been drugged with some memory-altering drug?

Sure. 99% of humanity has been drugged overnight, and you are the one person on the planet who has figured that out.

It's how the Jesus guy thinks. 99% of humanity has been drugged somehow, making them unable to see that he is actually Jesus.

Now, if such an improbable situation were to occur- that 99% of humanity acted as if the Super Bowl champion was a team other than the actual Super Bowl champion, would it be very likely that you would end up believing- or knowing- that the team that in fact (er, shmact) won the Super Bowl won the Super Bowl? Probably not- it would be exceedingly difficult and unlikely.

'Other than the actual champion.' Pretty amazing. You seem to believe that you have the power to tell the actual champion from the false champion, no matter what. Even if there is a conspiracy to rig the videotapes. Even if all the replays of the game show the 'wrong' team winning. Even if someone has gone back and changed all the newspaper accounts of the game.

We think differently, you and I. I would begin to doubt myself in those circumstances.

Believing is really easy- we can believe whatever we want. Knowledge, however, is constrained by reality.

Sure. Your personal opinion of reality constrains you from jumping from belief to knowledge. The weird part is where you deny that others can have different opinions of reality than you do and therefore a right to know differently than you do.

Anyway, you are mistaken. I have witnessed many people knowing many things. Often the known things were directly opposite to each other.

So, clearly, it is an easy thing to know anything one likes.

 

[Falvlun]

So if I am certain that, e.g., Micheal Jordan is the President of the US, then I know that Micheal Jordan is the President of the US?

:areyoucra

That is how we tend to utilize the word, yes.

We use the phrase "I know" when we are 100% positive about the truth of something. We use the phrase "I believe" for anything we hold to be true, whether we are 100% positive or not (usually, not).

If you want to claim that there is no differentiation between knowledge and belief generally, then you're committed to claiming that the following beliefs are not distinguishable on any epistemic grounds-

I believe Martha Stewart is 200 years old.

I believe (and know) that the name of this thread is "Knowledge and Belief"

So are you prepared to say that any (patently false) belief (such as, for instance, that 2+2=5, that the sun is actually the moon, that our weather is controlled by space aliens, etc.) is indistinguishable from any piece of knowledge (that 2+2=4, that the earth orbits the sun, that today is Sept. 7th, etc.)?

I do not know what you mean when you say "epistemic grounds".

I am saying that how we utilize the words "belief" and "knowledge" do convey a distinguishable difference to those with whom we are communicating: namely, level of certainty.

The common philosophical definition for knowledge is a "justified true belief". This definition is exceedingly problematic in practical application.

What do we mean by "true"? It is hard to come up with a definition that doesn't use words like "believe" or "justified/evidenced/etc". How do you determine whether something is true?

So we are left with "justified". Who decides whether something is justified enough? What is appropriate justification? Doesn't it ultimately come down to what you believe-- believe to be appropriate, believe to be true, or believe to be sufficient?

So we are merely left with belief: Belief that something is justified and true. If you believe something is justified and true, then you (will likely) consider that knowledge.

And so we come full circle to my original offering: Knowledge is distinguished from belief simply by level of certainty.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I am saying that how we utilize the words "belief" and "knowledge" do convey a distinguishable difference to those with whom we are communicating: namely, level of certainty.

Unless we are a True Believer.

In that case, the things we know are actually true in a sense transcending our mere personal opinion. They are true in God's Opinion.

 

[Falvlun]

Unless we are a True Believer.

In that case, the things we know are actually true in a sense transcending our mere personal opinion. They are true in God's Opinion.

Not gonna touch that with a ten foot pole. :yes:

 

[Gjallarhorn]

This occurred to me today as well. Belief seems to be a feeling of truth without substantial evidence or convincing argument, yet when people say "I believe..." it doesn't compute. What they appear to be saying is "I have a suspicion that...", whereas an actual believer would always say "I know..."

 

[Falvlun]

This occurred to me today as well. Belief seems to be a feeling of truth without substantial evidence or convincing argument, yet when people say "I believe..." it doesn't compute. What they appear to be saying is "I have a suspicion that...", whereas an actual believer would always say "I know..."

I categorize it a little differently, which allows it to fit comfortably with how we use the word.

Beliefs are anything that we hold to be true. We do not need to be sure, nor do we require any convincing evidence or good reasons in order to have a belief. It we think something is true, then that's a belief.

Now, we tend to categorize our beliefs based upon amount of evidence or good reasons it has to support it, and our level of certainty about it.

Knowledge is a specialized form of belief in which we have high certainty, and in which we believe we have lots of supporting evidence. Faith is another specialized form of belief, which tends to be high on certainty, and purposefully low on evidence.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Sure, you're welcome to say such a thing. But I would generally avoid doing so.

And as I said, you're essentially conceding the substantive point and merely insisting on a terminological preference.

Weird and secretive? What a curious thing to say.

Not really. You stated that you avoid using the word "fact"- which takes some effort to begin with- and have not told us why.

Well then why have you brought it up?

Because it is the position you seem to be driving at. And it is self-contradictory.

So if I say the shirt is red and you say the shirt is green, what do we then know about the color of the shirt?

Obviously "we" don't know anything, since we are holding mutually exclusive beliefs.

So what do we know about the shirt's color in that situation? Who knows what?

Well, the person whose belief turns out to be right, provided that their belief is held on a relevant and adequate basis. Is one of us color-blind? Is one of us on drugs? Is one of us wearing tinted-glasses? You act like determining the fact of the matter in cases of disagreement is this huge curiosity, when in fact, these disagreements are hardly intractable. If two people disagree about the color of a shirt, its usually because there is some other factor at play (color blindness, lighting, tinted glasses, whatever).

To me, math knowledge looks like a little game which we play with ourselves. We declare that 1 + 1 = 2. Then we assert that we can know that 1 + 1 = 2.

Pretty unremarkable instance of knowledge, like knowing the rules of chess as contained in a particular chess rulebook.

It doesn't have to be remarkable to be an adequate counter-example. As you've conceded, there is such a thing as math knowledge- that is to say that there is a difference between knowing that 1+1=2, and believing that 1+1=3.

Forgive me, but the bolded sentence sounds like something a philosophy student would say who is working his hardest to avoid answering a direct question.

If you require clarification just say so, I'll be happy to elaborate. (and as it happens, your response here sounds like something someone would say to try to disguise their own lack of comprehension). Truth, and by extension knowledge, consists in correspondence- between linguistic items and the world (or, more precisely, states of affairs/facts). But since we can never step outside of ourselves to assume some priviledged objective viewpoint such that we can compare propositions to the facts, this correspondence is only given over time, not in a moment- it discerns itself through coherence, consistency with all the other available data. As I said, I cannot assume a birds-eye view to determine conclusively whether my perception of, say, a stick refracted in water, actually is veridical or misleading (or, whether a perception is a hallucination) by comparing my perception to how things actually are- my perception is my only way of knowing how things actually are. But if I touch the stick, and feel that it is straight, if I pull it out of the water and see that it is straight, if I'm aware of how refraction works, all these consistencies corroborate the correspondence between my belief and the world.

By the way, it's a nonsense sentence. It really is.

No, it really isn't, and this comment pretty damningly reveals your ignorance on this topic, seeing as you've tried to give the impression that you're not only familiar with the problem of perception and correspondence, but more so than others on this thread.

Sure. In your world, hallucinations can be uncovered, exposed for what they are

Tell me then, how is a hallucination distinguished as a hallucination but for taking into account the relevant data? Such as, did I take any psychotropic drugs which might explain my perception? Do I still perceive the same thing when I'm no longer under these effects? Have I been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder? Etc. This is how things work in the real world.

Try googling 'mass hallucinations'.

No need.

It's how the Jesus guy thinks. 99% of humanity has been drugged somehow, making them unable to see that he is actually Jesus.

This is hand-waving, not an argument.

'Other than the actual champion.' Pretty amazing. You seem to believe that you have the power to tell the actual champion from the false champion, no matter what.

No, I never said that.

We think differently, you and I. I would begin to doubt myself in those circumstances.

You certainly should. You're getting your ***** handed to you (and, as much as I'd like to take credit for it, not really as the result of anything I've said; you've already essentially conceded the point at issue by contradicting yourself, in admitting that there are facts, although you don't like to refer to them with the word "facts", and that there is such a thing as mathematical knowledge distinct from mere belief, even if this knowledge merely consists in knowledge of somewhat arbitrary rules)...

 

[Enai de a lukal]

That is how we tend to utilize the word, yes.

We use the phrase "I know" when we are 100% positive about the truth of something. We use the phrase "I believe" for anything we hold to be true, whether we are 100% positive or not (usually, not).

No. One can be certain, and mistaken. If one is mistaken about P then one cannot, by definition, know P; thus, it follows necessarily that knowledge is not distinguished by certainty. This is pretty uncontroversial.

 

[Falvlun]

No. One can be certain, and mistaken. If one is mistaken about P then one cannot, by definition, know P; thus, it follows necessarily that knowledge is not distinguished by certainty. This is pretty uncontroversial.

You said "By definition". Which definition? Isn't that precisely what we are debating? The "Justified true belief" definition? If so, please read my post regarding why that definition is neither useful, nor reflects usage.

A further problem with requiring something to be true in order to consider it knowledge is that we have a time machine issue.

Assuredly, there are things we consider true now that in a hundred years, a thousand years, will be discovered to be false. And yet, we are claiming to know these things today. And we are telling the truth, because we are knowing something to the best of our ability and fully conveying the meaning of the word.

Does the new evidence from the future somehow retroactively make it so that no one in the past had knowledge?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

What do we mean by "true"? It is hard to come up with a definition that doesn't use words like "believe" or "justified/evidenced/etc".

That's not accurate- "snow is white" is true if and only if snow is white. Or, more generally, "P" is true if and only if P. And the main challenge to the JTB account of knowledge are Gettier-type situations, which can be answered satisfactorily anyways.

How do you determine whether something is true?

You see if it is corroborated by the evidence, if it is an empirical claim, or, for a logical/mathematical claim, whether it follows according to a set of formalized rules.

In any case, that knowledge is not distinguished by psychological certainty is not the pertinent issue here- only whether knowledge can be distinguished from belief at all, and as we've seen here (and we all knew already), it can.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You said "By definition". Which definition? Isn't that precisely what we are debating? The "Justified true belief" definition? If so, please read my post regarding why that definition is neither useful, nor reflects usage.

That knowledge precludes falsity is not peculiar to the JTB definition of knowledge, but every definition of knowledge I'm aware of. As well as common use- "I know P and P is false" is unintelligible.

Now, it may be that in common use, people use their psychological certainty to evaluate whether they merely believe, or know, but that isn't the question we're concerned with here, since this criteria could be (and is) mistaken. We're concerned with whether this criteria is accurate, and its fairly obvious it is not since psychological certainty doesn't preclude error, whereas knowledge does.

Assuredly, there are things we consider true now that in a hundred years, a thousand years, will be discovered to be false. And yet, we are claiming to know these things today...

Does the new evidence from the future somehow retroactively make it so that no one in the past had knowledge?

If it turns out that what was regarded as knowledge is actually false, then yes, it turns out that our usage was mistaken, even if it was honest and genuine.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

And as I said, you're essentially conceding the substantive point and merely insisting on a terminological preference.

Whatever you say, I guess. But are you aware that philosophy/theology is about human language as much as anything? It's all about words, you know.

Not really. You stated that you avoid using the word "fact"- which takes some effort to begin with- and have not told us why.

I'm a humble guy. Since none of 'you guys' have asked me, I have not presumed to preach it. (And it takes no effort at all, by the way, to build up a linguistic world and use language elegantly, accurately, artistically.)

Because it is the position you seem to be driving at. And it is self-contradictory.

Ah. That clarifies it for me. So you've made up a silly little belief [It's a fact that there are no facts.] and claim that it belongs to me and that it is silly and contradictory.

I see. This is a behavior which you learned in philosophy school, I'm guessing?

May I give you another little bit of advice? If you would learn and grow in your thought, perhaps you might focus more on understanding the other guy's position and forego the urge to make up silly beliefs for him which you can then ridicule. That's how I try to do.

Obviously "we" don't know anything, since we are holding mutually exclusive beliefs.

Right right right. Only one of us (or neither of us) knows anything about the shirt's color. God may consider it to be orange, after all. In that case, neither of us would know anything about the shirt's color -- at least in your system of thought.

Well, the person whose belief turns out to be right, provided that their belief is held on a relevant and adequate basis.

I had so hoped you wouldn't say that. It is the perennial cry of every fundamentalist everywhere. Who knows the truth of God's Will? Well, the one who is right knows God's Will. Goodness.

So tell me. Which one of us is right about the shirt's color?

There are only two possible answers, you know. 1) We take a vote among all those who have seen the shirt and we go with the majority opinion about the shirt's color, or 2) E decides that he himself is the one person on the planet who recognizes the shirt's true color... and so he insists that he is right and anyone who disagrees with him is wrong.

Yes? (And I think many of us are beginning to suspect which method you will use.)

Is one of us color-blind? Is one of us on drugs? Is one of us wearing tinted-glasses?

Nope. Sorry. None of that applies.

You act like determining the fact of the matter in cases of disagreement is this huge curiosity, when in fact, these disagreements are hardly intractable. If two people disagree about the color of a shirt, its usually because there is some other factor at play (color blindness, lighting, tinted glasses, whatever).

I'm afraid we've examined all possible explanations like those and can find nothing.

So which is us knows the shirt's true color?

And how do we determine which of us is 'right' about it?

(Please answer the two questions above. Your answers will help me understand your position on this.)

It doesn't have to be remarkable to be an adequate counter-example. As you've conceded, there is such a thing as math knowledge- that is to say that there is a difference between knowing that 1+1=2, and believing that 1+1=3.

No, you're mistaken about that. I've just tried to pass over math knowledge because people seem so confused about it, but since you insist, I'll turn and address it closely for you. Here's how I see it:

We humans seem to recognize discrete objects external to us. Things. Let's use the example of 'balls.' These are round objects, of a certain size and appearance, etc., and we can see, feel, and sometimes even hear and smell them. They are things and of such a distinct category that we've given them a name. We call them 'balls.'

When we notice a single ball, we agree to use the word 'one' for that single ball, as a modifier. We call it 'one ball'. When another ball comes along, we add an '-s' to the label and use the modifier 'two'. It's now 'two balls'. And so on.

Sometimes we see one ball and we notice that another one ball makes what we call 'two' balls. So we make up a word for the action of another ball coming along, a verb, and we call this word 'add' or 'plus' or 'combined with' or whatever.

So now we can say that one ball and one ball make two balls (1+1= 2).

If you find this an instance of 'knowledge,' then that's how you find it. For me, it simply goes back to that physical observation thing I mentioned earlier, along with humans creating and manipulating symbols.

Anyway, hope you have fun with all that. It seems like a distraction to me.

But if I touch the stick, and feel that it is straight, if I pull it out of the water and see that it is straight, if I'm aware of how refraction works, all these consistencies corroborate the correspondence between my belief and the world.

Yes, I understood that's what you were saying. I've just pointed out that it doesn't always work. So we are back to a raw vote as to who is hallucinating (and not 'right') and who isn't hallucinating (and is 'right') Yes?

No, it really isn't, and this comment pretty damningly reveals your ignorance on this topic, seeing as you've tried to give the impression that you're not only familiar with the problem of perception and correspondence, but more so than others on this
thread.

I think I prefer to stay ignorant of the topic. If it means I must believe that 'correspondence can discern itself,' I'd rather stay away and so keep my thought integrated and clean.

Tell me then, how is a hallucination distinguished as a hallucination but for taking into account the relevant data?

Vote. Raw vote -- as I've tried to explain from the beginning. We put people in asylums because they lost the vote. If we are the current incarnation of Jesus Christ, it is best to keep that to ourselves, lest the others might put it up for a vote.

You certainly should. You're getting your ***** handed to you.

Yes, my son. You are a mighty mind. I am only a lowly slug.

(But I do ask myself: Why is it that the poorest debaters are the most likely to crow about debate victory?)

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Whatever you say, I guess. But are you aware that philosophy/theology is about human language as much as anything? It's all about words, you know.

In a sense, yes it is. But this is irrelevant.

I'm a humble guy. Since none of 'you guys' have asked me, I have not presumed to preach it.

Unfortunately, since people have a burden of proof to substantiate their claims in a debate or argument, if your humility leads you to refrain from doing so, it isn't a virtue in this particular environment.

Ah. That clarifies it for me. So you've made up a silly little belief [It's a fact that there are no facts.] and claim that it belongs to me and that it is silly and contradictory.

You have implied, at various time, that there are no facts. But if there are no facts, then it is a fact that there are no facts since "P" and "It is a fact that P" are equivalent.

I see. This is a behavior which you learned in philosophy school, I'm guessing?

No, recognizing and avoiding self-contradiction is something most people learn at a relatively young age (even if only implicitly). I'm sorry to see that you were not so fortunate- but perhaps going to "philosophy school" would help you remedy this difficult.

May I give you another little bit of advice? If you would learn and grow in your thought, perhaps you might focus more on understanding the other guy's position and forego the urge to make up silly beliefs for him which you can then ridicule.

Those in glass houses...

I had so hoped you wouldn't say that. It is the perennial cry of every fundamentalist

Ad-hominem is not a valid form of counter-argument.

Who knows the truth of God's Will? Well, the one who is right knows God's Will. Goodness.

A straw-man, and one I explicitly excluded: here, for instance-

But since we can never step outside of ourselves to assume some privileged objective viewpoint such that we can compare propositions to the facts...

So tell me. Which one of us is right about the shirt's color?

Whichever one believes that the shirt has the color which it in fact has, and believes this for a rationally sufficient reason. It's entirely possible that neither knows the color of the shirt, both could be mistaken. In any case, you haven't given me enough information to give a more specific answer than this.

There are only two possible answers, you know. 1) We take a vote among all those who have seen the shirt and we go with the majority opinion about the shirt's color, or 2) E decides that he himself is the one person on the planet who recognizes the shirt's true color... and so he insists that he is right and anyone who disagrees with him is wrong.

For one thing, you're conflating knowing, with knowing that one knows, which is a meta-claim. I may know something without necessarily knowing that I know that. Haven't you heard the expression, "I can't believe I knew that!" (such as, for instance, when someone surprises themselves by knowing the answer to something they didn't think they did)?

I'm afraid we've examined all possible explanations like those and can find nothing.

So which is us knows the shirt's true color?

Again, not enough information.

And how do we determine which of us is 'right' about it?

Again, conflating the claim with a meta-claim. Sigh....

We humans seem to recognize discrete objects external to us. Things. Let's use the example of 'balls.' These are round objects, of a certain size and appearance, etc., and we can see, feel, and sometimes even hear and smell them. They are things and of such a distinct category that we've given them a name. We call them 'balls.'

When we notice a single ball, we agree to use the word 'one' for that single ball, as a modifier. We call it 'one ball'. When another ball comes along, we add an '-s' to the label and use the modifier 'two'. It's now 'two balls'. And so on.

Sometimes we see one ball and we notice that another one ball makes what we call 'two' balls. So we make up a word for the action of another ball coming along, a verb, and we call this word 'add' or 'plus' or 'combined with' or whatever.

So now we can say that one ball and one ball make two balls (1+1= 2).

If you find this an instance of 'knowledge,' then that's how you find it. For me, it simply goes back to that physical observation thing I mentioned earlier, along with humans creating and manipulating symbols.

First, I just can't help but wonder if its a fact/is true that, e.g.

We humans seem to recognize discrete objects external to us.

Or that-

When we notice a single ball, we agree to use the word 'one' for that single ball, as a modifier. We call it 'one ball'. When another ball comes along, we add an '-s' to the label and use the modifier 'two'. It's now 'two balls'. And so on.

Just curious. Anyways, this isn't a novel notion, but the fatal problem here is that it doesn't account for people's ability to calculate and determine the truth of mathematical expressions they've never encountered before; this sort of empiricism has been absolutely demolished by poverty-of-the-stimulus type arguments. We can calculate and know literally an infinite amount of mathematical propositions, even though the process you describe above is finite, of necessity. In any case, this isn't the relevant issue here, rather, it is whether its possible to be mistaken about, e.g. the number of balls, or the result of adding certain quantities of balls, and whether it is possible to hold beliefs RE the number of balls and operations pertaining to them on a rational basis. From what you say here, it seems it is, which is contrary to what you're arguing.

Yes, I understood that's what you were saying. I've just pointed out that it doesn't always work.

No, you didn't, you've stipulated an ad hoc scenario which seems to support your view because you've left out the relevant information (such as the color of the shirt), and because you've confuse a claim with a meta-claim.

I think I prefer to stay ignorant of the topic. If it means I must believe that 'correspondence can discern itself,' I'd rather stay away and so keep my thought integrated and clean.

Just noting that you've ignored my explanation of what this means, and have no responded to that, preferring to offer ad-hominem nonsense instead.

Vote. Raw vote -- as I've tried to explain from the beginning. We put people in asylums because they lost the vote.

Needless to say, that's not what lands people in psychiatric care.

Yes, my son. You are a mighty mind. I am only a lowly slug.

Not really-

You're getting your ***** handed to you (and, as much as I'd like to take credit for it, not really as the result of anything I've said; you've already essentially conceded the point at issue by contradicting yourself, in admitting that there are facts, although you don't like to refer to them with the word "facts", and that there is such a thing as mathematical knowledge distinct from mere belief, even if this knowledge merely consists in knowledge of somewhat arbitrary rules

You're doing my job for me, and you've only dug yourself in deeper with this latest collection of ad-hominems, straw-men, and other gems.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Statements about the map do not translate onto the territory, and we don't actually know what the content of the territory is (unless we are the territory).

Certainty is the only measure we have of whether or not we are mistaken. Solipsism, despite being useless as a matter of practicality, remains undefeated. Since you cannot know whether or not you are mistaken, you cannot also know when your beliefs are justified and when they are not. All you have is a measure how certain you should be based on the perceived probabilities of objects in question happening or being true.

Probabilities might approach 100% certainty, but at no point do they ever actually reach it.

MTF

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Unfortunately, since people have a burden of proof to substantiate their claims in a debate or argument, if your humility leads you to refrain from doing so, it isn't a virtue in this particular environment.

It's so interesting to me -- the way you insist upon twisting things around to try and make your debate partner appear like the bad guy.

So interesting. Have you considered what might cause you to do something like that? I mean, it's some need to dominate, yes? To win. I wonder where that might come from.

Imagine if you were in a position of power, like in a debate forum!

Anyway, I'm happy to substantiate my beliefs, despite your claim otherwise. Actually I've examined my beliefs so closely and lived with them for so long now that they seem entirely obvious -- so self-evident that it's hard for me to imagine anyone would need them explained.

But just ask.

You have implied, at various time, that there are no facts. But if there are no facts, then it is a fact that there are no facts since "P" and "It is a fact that P" are equivalent.

That's your own flawed reasoning and language use, certainly not mine.

No, recognizing and avoiding self-contradiction is something most people learn at a relatively young age (even if only implicitly). I'm sorry to see that you were not so fortunate- but perhaps going to "philosophy school" would help you remedy this difficult.

It would probably be better if I did not share my opinion of those who have suffered a course of academic philosophy.

Ad-hominem is not a valid form of counter-argument.

I'm sorry, but I do indeed consider you to be of a fundamentalist mindset. By that, I mean that you seem to believe in some Ultimate Truth outside of yourself. You believe that the shirt is 'really' some particular color and that you personally can access the truth of that color. Even if 99.9% of other humans disagree with you about the color, so what. You can still know what the 'real' color is.

To me, that's an entirely foreign mindset. I am comfortable with the ambiguity, the not-knowing. What are the odds that a particular puny little ape like me is the one entity in the whole universe who can reliably know the truth of things?

Whichever one believes that the shirt has the color which it in fact has, and believes this for a rationally sufficient reason.

Oh boy. See what I mean? It's exactly how fundamentalists of all stripes (from Christian to atheist) answer me. I ask,"Which one has the proper truth." And they answer, "Well, whichever one of them is right."

You're a smart guy, E. Can you really not stand back and see the essential problem with such an answer?

How do we know which one is right? How do we determine what color the shirt 'in fact has'?

That's the question which you just can't answer. And if you can't answer such a simple question, I'd say your worldview might could use a bit of overhauling.

It's entirely possible that neither knows the color of the shirt, both could be mistaken. In any case, you haven't given me enough information to give a more specific answer than this.

I understand. I'd have to tell you 'what color the shirt actually is' before you could tell me who properly knows its color.

But I'm not God. I'm sorry. I can't tell you any truth which transcends my opinion.

For one thing, you're conflating knowing, with knowing that one knows, which is a meta-claim. I may know something without necessarily knowing that I know that.

Sure. The broken watch is probably correct twice a day. But what use is that?

No, you didn't, you've stipulated an ad hoc scenario which seems to support your view because you've left out the relevant information (such as the color of the shirt)....

Really I don't mean to offend, but you should know that I laugh hysterically inside whenever you say that. The actual color of the shirt. My goodness. Are you asking me to enter Prophet Mode and tell you what God declares about the shirt's color? I would have to say that God doesn't care about the shirt's color and He sure doesn't want to ruin a perfectly good debate by giving up that answer.

You're doing my job for me, and you've only dug yourself in deeper with this latest collection of ad-hominems, straw-men, and other gems.

Yeah, man. You're a big bad debater. I think we can all see that.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Since you cannot know whether or not you are mistaken, you cannot also know when your beliefs are justified and when they are not. All you have is a measure how certain you should be based on the perceived probabilities of objects in question happening or being true.

Probabilities might approach 100% certainty, but at no point do they ever actually reach it.

Makes sense to me. Good message.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Statements about the map do not translate onto the territory, and we don't actually know what the content of the territory is (unless we are the territory).

Certainty is the only measure we have of whether or not we are mistaken. Solipsism, despite being useless as a matter of practicality, remains undefeated. Since you cannot know whether or not you are mistaken, you cannot also know when your beliefs are justified and when they are not. All you have is a measure how certain you should be based on the perceived probabilities of objects in question happening or being true.

Probabilities might approach 100% certainty, but at no point do they ever actually reach it.

MTF

Again, conflating the meta-claim with the claim itself. One needn't be able to know that one knows in order to know, and this still doesn't touch the distinction between knowledge or even correct belief from mistaken belief; we are not impartial viewers of the world, watching it play out as the audience watches a play, we are part of the world itself, and we interact with it in various ways, which do not all involve "taking a vote"- and the world gives us feedback which distinguishes certain beliefs from others; namely, correct or true ones. Again, the possibility of error is a red herring. And we can also further distinguish between the foundations for correct beliefs- that is, we can distinguish between the unjustified ones, the "lucky guesses", and ones which are warranted given the feedback we receive from the world (also known as evidence). With these two distinctions in hand, we have distinguished knowledge from belief, as a subset of belief that meets these two conditions- being true (so far as we can tell- subject to error), and being warranted.

And RE solipsism, if you think it is undefeated, then I take it you're not familiar with Wittgenstein's private language argument? If Wittgenstein is correct, and his argument is very compelling, then solipsism is incoherent- in which case it is only "undefeated" in the same sense that a boxer who never participates in a match is undefeated.

 

[Falvlun]

Statements about the map do not translate onto the territory, and we don't actually know what the content of the territory is (unless we are the territory).

Certainty is the only measure we have of whether or not we are mistaken. Solipsism, despite being useless as a matter of practicality, remains undefeated. Since you cannot know whether or not you are mistaken, you cannot also know when your beliefs are justified and when they are not. All you have is a measure how certain you should be based on the perceived probabilities of objects in question happening or being true.

Probabilities might approach 100% certainty, but at no point do they ever actually reach it.

MTF

Well stated