Guest XplsvBam Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 What? He didn't know he was eating the food, he beleived he was eating the food. He wasn't eating the food and therefore it was not true, and because it did not fulfill all the requirments of knowledge it is not knowledge. But it was justified with smell and taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 But it wasn't true. Let me tell you again what is needed for knowledge: Justified, True, Belief. Knowledge requires ALL of them together. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest XplsvBam Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 But it wasn't true. Let me tell you again what is needed for knowledge: Justified, True, Belief. Knowledge requires ALL of them together. Then the best argument you have is circular reasoning. If you want to prove me wrong then tell me how to find truth? If you say knowledge: that is circular reasoning because you can't make a definition with the word already in it. If something is justified does that make it true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 But it wasn't true. Let me tell you again what is needed for knowledge: Justified, True, Belief. Knowledge requires ALL of them together. Then the best argument you have is circular reasoning. If you want to prove me wrong then tell me how to find truth? If you say knowledge: that is circular reasoning because you can't make a definition with the word already in it. If something is justified does that make it true? No, it requires it to be true and it requires it to be beleived in. Anyway - How is knowledge defined with the word knowledge? How many times do i need to tell you thing again and again. Knowledge requires a small checklist. [] Is it Justified? [] Is it believed? [] Is it true? If you check all those you have knowledge. Edit: So lets do your neo example: [/] Is it Justified? - Yes, his sense tells him he is eating. [/] Is it believed? - Yes he beleives to be eating. [X] Is it true? - Not because he is not eating. = Not knowledge that he is eating. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest XplsvBam Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 But it wasn't true. Let me tell you again what is needed for knowledge: Justified, True, Belief. Knowledge requires ALL of them together. Then the best argument you have is circular reasoning. If you want to prove me wrong then tell me how to find truth? If you say knowledge: that is circular reasoning because you can't make a definition with the word already in it. If something is justified does that make it true? No, it requires it to be true and it requires it to be beleived in. Anyway - How is knowledge defined with the word knowledge? How many times do i need to tell you thing again and again. Knowledge requires a small checklist. [x] Is it Justified? [x] Is it believed? [] Is it true? If you check all those you have knowledge. Good job pulling out more circular reasoning. You can't have the word in the definition of the word. @ the checklist: Looks like with your definition there is no such thing as knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Satenza, I don't get what you're saying- we can never know what is Truth. By that logic we can never have knowledge :-s . We can have things appear to be true beyond any shadow of a doubt by human perspective, but that doesn't mean it's part of Truth. I'm pretty sure you know that, it just doesn't sound like it from your posts. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 But it wasn't true. Let me tell you again what is needed for knowledge: Justified, True, Belief. Knowledge requires ALL of them together. Then the best argument you have is circular reasoning. If you want to prove me wrong then tell me how to find truth? If you say knowledge: that is circular reasoning because you can't make a definition with the word already in it. If something is justified does that make it true? No, it requires it to be true and it requires it to be beleived in. Anyway - How is knowledge defined with the word knowledge? How many times do i need to tell you thing again and again. Knowledge requires a small checklist. [x] Is it Justified? [x] Is it believed? [] Is it true? If you check all those you have knowledge. Good job pulling out more circular reasoning. You can't have the word in the definition of the word. HOW HAVE I DEFINED KNOWLEDGE WITH THE WORD KNOWLEDGE IN THE DEFINITION? With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest XplsvBam Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 HOW HAVE I DEFINED KNOWLEDGE WITH THE WORD KNOWLEDGE IN THE DEFINITION? Look at the bold underlined word. It says truth, not knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defender2516 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Science sounds like politics gone mad. The one who is the most "technically" correct wins. ~Defender~ If you love me, send me a PM. 8 - Love me2 - Hate me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 HOW HAVE I DEFINED KNOWLEDGE WITH THE WORD KNOWLEDGE IN THE DEFINITION? Look at the bold underlined word. It says truth, not knowledge. Because you asked me whether justification alone entails truth. But we arn't talking about truth we are talking about knowledge. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parabola Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Science sounds like politics gone mad. The one who is the most "technically" correct wins. ~Defender~ Maybe that's because science is all about discovering what is "technically" correct. ~Parabola~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest XplsvBam Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 HOW HAVE I DEFINED KNOWLEDGE WITH THE WORD KNOWLEDGE IN THE DEFINITION? Look at the bold underlined word. It says truth, not knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 The only possible way you can challenge knowledge defined as justified true belief is by using the Gettier examples. Which you have failed to do, gone around and around in an argument leading to nowhere because you couldn't understand the definition of knowledge, or have the ability to logically assess it. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest XplsvBam Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 The only possible way you can challenge knowledge defined as justified true belief is by using the Gettier examples. Which you have failed to do, gone around and around in an argument leading to nowhere because you couldn't understand the definition of knowledge, or have the ability to logically assess it. What if the definition of knowledge isn't true? You try to justify it and you believe it, but one factor is missing: truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Finaly you get to a useful critisism of what constitutes as knowledge. Knowledge defined as justified true belief is in itself the best way so far to judge knowledge. Yes that may change in the future, but universally this is accepted as the best way. The problem arises when we try to aquire knowledge, take an example of me saying "My dog is female". She is female because being female constitutes itself through genetics. My vet tells me she is female, and I beleive she is female. Therefore I have knowledge that she is female because genetically she is female, my justification comes from my vet and i beleive she is female. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest XplsvBam Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Finaly you get to a useful critisism of what constitutes as knowledge. Knowledge defined as justified true belief is in itself the best way so far to judge knowledge. Yes that may change in the future, but universally this is accepted as the best way. The problem arises when we try to aquire knowledge, take an example of me saying "My dog is female". She is female because being female constitutes itself through genetics. My vet tells me she is female, and I beleive she is female. Therefore I have knowledge that she is female because genetically she is female, my justification comes from my vet and i beleive she is female. Just because someone tells you it is true and you believe it doesn't mean it is true. So, you are still missing truth. If you keep beating this dead horse you are going to end up with this conclusion: There is no such thing as knowledge. Or my conclusion: Knowledge isn't truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 But by human perspective it is. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Of course it's true, we as humans defined what is and what is not female. And my dogs genetic make up makes her female, and so she is female. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest XplsvBam Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Of course it's true, we as humans defined what is and what is not female. And my dogs genetic make up makes her female, and so she is female. We as humans define truth now? Ok, I can work with that (for now). But that makes your definition obsolete. You only need justification and belief. What happened to truth? I could just save you the time and come to the conclusion that knowledge doesn't exist. Or we can go with what I originally said. Knowledge isn't truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 No, in the instance of the dog we as humans defined what is female and what is not female. Thats why we have divides between the two, it's self evidently true by the nature of the word it is an a priori term. That works for things such as maths as well. [\] Justified - My vet tells me she is female, and I can see that she is female. [\] True - She is female because female is a self evident, a priori term which we as humans have assigned. [\]Belief - I beleive she is female. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted March 14, 2007 Author Share Posted March 14, 2007 Science sounds like politics gone mad. The one who is the most "technically" correct wins. ~Defender~ Maybe that's because science is all about discovering what is "technically" correct. ~Parabola~ Science isn't about 'winning' either. ~Warri0r~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonpost Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Of course it's true, we as humans defined what is and what is not female. And my dogs genetic make up makes her female, and so she is female. We as humans define truth now? Ok, I can work with that (for now). But that makes your definition obsolete. You only need justification and belief. What happened to truth? I could just save you the time and come to the conclusion that knowledge doesn't exist. Or we can go with what I originally said. Knowledge isn't truth. Knowledge isn't *always* "truth" in the wholistic sense. Knowledge is often bits and pieces which, when put together, create a truth. Quite often, people who say knowledge isn't truth are unaware of wording. For example, while the statement "the sky is blue" isn't necessarily truth, the statement "the sky appears to be blue to me" is a truth. And knowledge does exist in our current form. It does not exist if you consider nothing to be for certain, let alone consciousness or the universe/existence itself. You guys are arguing in circles because you aren't seeing one another's basic, root viewpoint. I hope that helped... Runescape Name: "unbug07"Expand your mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 I think 3 pages of arguing whats truth and what's knowledge is enough, boys and girls. Jesus. The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tripsis Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 I think 3 pages of arguing whats truth and what's knowledge is enough, boys and girls. Jesus. Agreed. I'm not going to lock this, but lets at least cut back on the over-heated arguments :wall: - 99 fletching | 99 thieving | 99 construction | 99 herblore | 99 smithing | 99 woodcutting - - 99 runecrafting - 99 prayer - 125 combat - 95 farming - - Blog - DeviantART - Book Reviews & Blog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 I think 3 pages of arguing whats truth and what's knowledge is enough, boys and girls. Jesus. Agreed. I'm not going to lock this, but lets at least cut back on the over-heated arguments :wall: I wouldn't call them over-heated, more like "pointless". [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now