Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions

Post by Terrapin Station »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 4:59 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:46 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:07 pm

Highly relevant since all knowledge is apprehended by the subject.

It's worth stepping aside for a moment to reflect that we may have knoweldge in the form of pure sensation, or praxis. Knowing where the keys on a piano or the instinctive bodily knoweldge of the feel of a car and the feedback from peddles and stirring wheel we cal take for granted. Etc. Such knowledge may be demonstrable, but langauge is usually relied upon to make sense of that knoweldge to others.

All knoweldge not of this kinetic/bodily kind has to be tranlated from the objective world and filtered through the categories of langauge. Since such structures and categories are predefined by our lived experience and previous knoweldge, knowledge that it purely NEW tends to be seen in relationship to what we already know, or think we know. New knoweldge is only apprehended in view of how it compares to what we already know. This can be problematic.
That doesn't make sense to me. What exactly is the relevance? Can you spell it out?
1. the objective world is not fundementally linguistic.
2. Knowledge about the world is understood in two ways. a) non linguistc knowledge, and b) linguistic knowledge.
3, non linguistic knowledgesuch things as muscle memory, imagery, practical.
4. linguistic knoweldge is textual, representative

ONLY representative. Categories and representations called words and grammar ar different from reality. Words are necessarily reductive. They are different specrums of meaning between people's differing experiences and uses of those words.
Words are connotative as well as denotative. Descriptions of reality are therefore ALWAYS approximations. Descriptions of reality are ALWAYS open to interpretation and misinterpretations.
THe more we live the more we construct a world view, and all new information is modified to accomodate what we expect. Children are better at new stuff, since their world views are still under construction and new stuff is more likely to modify the view rather than the view resisting change as happens with older people.

A world view constructed of abstractions - ask yourself how close to reality could it be??
This is why the difference between knowledge and reality is problematic.
I'll stop here.
Is this making any sense yet?
Knowledge is not identical to what it's knowledge about. Yeah, and? How would that be news to anyone?

The reason that we'd be expecting knowledge to be identical to what it's knowledge about, or the reason that it would be a problem that knowledge isn't identical to what knowledge is about is?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8479
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions

Post by Sculptor »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 8:23 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 4:59 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:46 pm

That doesn't make sense to me. What exactly is the relevance? Can you spell it out?
1. the objective world is not fundementally linguistic.
2. Knowledge about the world is understood in two ways. a) non linguistc knowledge, and b) linguistic knowledge.
3, non linguistic knowledgesuch things as muscle memory, imagery, practical.
4. linguistic knoweldge is textual, representative

ONLY representative. Categories and representations called words and grammar ar different from reality. Words are necessarily reductive. They are different specrums of meaning between people's differing experiences and uses of those words.
Words are connotative as well as denotative. Descriptions of reality are therefore ALWAYS approximations. Descriptions of reality are ALWAYS open to interpretation and misinterpretations.
THe more we live the more we construct a world view, and all new information is modified to accomodate what we expect. Children are better at new stuff, since their world views are still under construction and new stuff is more likely to modify the view rather than the view resisting change as happens with older people.

A world view constructed of abstractions - ask yourself how close to reality could it be??
This is why the difference between knowledge and reality is problematic.
I'll stop here.
Is this making any sense yet?
Knowledge is not identical to what it's knowledge about. Yeah, and? How would that be news to anyone?
If you do not want to discuss that finer aspects of it, then why contribute to a thread about knowledge?
Actually, don't answer, just fuck off.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions

Post by Terrapin Station »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 10:33 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 8:23 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 4:59 pm

1. the objective world is not fundementally linguistic.
2. Knowledge about the world is understood in two ways. a) non linguistc knowledge, and b) linguistic knowledge.
3, non linguistic knowledgesuch things as muscle memory, imagery, practical.
4. linguistic knoweldge is textual, representative

ONLY representative. Categories and representations called words and grammar ar different from reality. Words are necessarily reductive. They are different specrums of meaning between people's differing experiences and uses of those words.
Words are connotative as well as denotative. Descriptions of reality are therefore ALWAYS approximations. Descriptions of reality are ALWAYS open to interpretation and misinterpretations.
THe more we live the more we construct a world view, and all new information is modified to accomodate what we expect. Children are better at new stuff, since their world views are still under construction and new stuff is more likely to modify the view rather than the view resisting change as happens with older people.

A world view constructed of abstractions - ask yourself how close to reality could it be??
This is why the difference between knowledge and reality is problematic.
I'll stop here.
Is this making any sense yet?
Knowledge is not identical to what it's knowledge about. Yeah, and? How would that be news to anyone?
If you do not want to discuss that finer aspects of it, then why contribute to a thread about knowledge?
Actually, don't answer, just fuck off.
This is why I asked Peter this earlier: "what would knowledge be on your view if not some sort of interaction/relationship between people and other things?"

Some sort of interaction/relationship between people and other things is obviously not going to be IDENTICAL to just the other things. So the fact that it's not identical to the other things (where the other things aren't language) is hardly a cogent point about knowledge. No one should expect knowledge to be identical to the other things. They'd have a very, very weird misunderstanding of what knowledge is if they're expecting that.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8479
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions

Post by Sculptor »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 11:49 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 10:33 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 8:23 pm

Knowledge is not identical to what it's knowledge about. Yeah, and? How would that be news to anyone?
If you do not want to discuss that finer aspects of it, then why contribute to a thread about knowledge?
Actually, don't answer, just fuck off.
This is why I asked Peter this earlier: "what would knowledge be on your view if not some sort of interaction/relationship between people and other things?"

Some sort of interaction/relationship between people and other things is obviously not going to be IDENTICAL to just the other things. So the fact that it's not identical to the other things (where the other things aren't language) is hardly a cogent point about knowledge. No one should expect knowledge to be identical to the other things. They'd have a very, very weird misunderstanding of what knowledge is if they're expecting that.
I'll respond to your need when you take it what I actually said above.
Why would I bother else, you discared what I was saying to you?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions

Post by Terrapin Station »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 9:46 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 11:49 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 10:33 pm

If you do not want to discuss that finer aspects of it, then why contribute to a thread about knowledge?
Actually, don't answer, just fuck off.
This is why I asked Peter this earlier: "what would knowledge be on your view if not some sort of interaction/relationship between people and other things?"

Some sort of interaction/relationship between people and other things is obviously not going to be IDENTICAL to just the other things. So the fact that it's not identical to the other things (where the other things aren't language) is hardly a cogent point about knowledge. No one should expect knowledge to be identical to the other things. They'd have a very, very weird misunderstanding of what knowledge is if they're expecting that.
I'll respond to your need when you take it what I actually said above.
Why would I bother else, you discared what I was saying to you?
My need?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8479
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions

Post by Sculptor »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:35 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 9:46 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 11:49 pm

This is why I asked Peter this earlier: "what would knowledge be on your view if not some sort of interaction/relationship between people and other things?"

Some sort of interaction/relationship between people and other things is obviously not going to be IDENTICAL to just the other things. So the fact that it's not identical to the other things (where the other things aren't language) is hardly a cogent point about knowledge. No one should expect knowledge to be identical to the other things. They'd have a very, very weird misunderstanding of what knowledge is if they're expecting that.
I'll respond to your need when you take it what I actually said above.
Why would I bother else, you discared what I was saying to you?
My need?
Okay want
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions

Post by Terrapin Station »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:41 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:35 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 9:46 am
I'll respond to your need when you take it what I actually said above.
Why would I bother else, you discared what I was saying to you?
My need?
Okay want
It was just an explanation.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8479
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions

Post by Sculptor »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:57 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:41 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:35 pm

My need?
Okay want
It was just an explanation.
Which you flipped off..
THe more we live the more we construct a world view, and all new information is modified to accomodate what we expect. Children are better at new stuff, since their world views are still under construction and new stuff is more likely to modify the view rather than the view resisting change as happens with older people.

A world view constructed of abstractions - ask yourself how close to reality could it be??
This is why the difference between knowledge and reality is problematic.
I'll stop here.
Is this making any sense yet?


I do not think any of this is making any sense to you.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions

Post by Terrapin Station »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 4:29 pm A world view constructed of abstractions - ask yourself how close to reality could it be??
The problem here is the question "How close to reality could it be."

How would we quantify something like "how close to reality" language versus something else might be?

And if we can't quantify it, how does it make sense to ask a question like that?

Obviously knowledge and what the knowledge is about are not identical. No one should expect them to be. That's not at all the idea. So critiquing knowledge on the grounds that it's not the same as what it's knowledge about is a pretty Homer Simpsonish/Emily Litellaish move. It amounts to saying that there's something wrong with x for not being F, when x never even neared purporting to be F in the first place. It's like criticizing an automobile tire for not being a very good river. Why would anyone expect it to be a river in the first place? How could someone so misunderstand what automobile tires are?

So no one should have ever had a notion that knowledge was supposed to be identical to what it's knowledge about in the first place. Hence, noting that it's not the same as what it's knowledge about, that language, beliefs, etc. are not the same as rocks or whatever, seems rather dim.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8479
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions

Post by Sculptor »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 4:40 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 4:29 pm A world view constructed of abstractions - ask yourself how close to reality could it be??
The problem here is the question "How close to reality could it be."

How would we quantify something like "how close to reality" language versus something else might be?

And if we can't quantify it, how does it make sense to ask a question like that?

Obviously knowledge and what the knowledge is about are not identical. No one should expect them to be. That's not at all the idea. So critiquing knowledge on the grounds that it's not the same as what it's knowledge about is a pretty Homer Simpsonish/Emily Litellaish move.PLONK......
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions

Post by Peter Holmes »

If I may - a sidebar...

Any claim that begins 'Knowledge is...' can only ever be a description of the way(s) we use, or could use, the word 'knowledge', its cognates, such as 'know', and related words, such as 'ignorance'.

And that's it. Those are the only facts of the matter. And those facts - about linguistic practice - are out in the open.

If anyone thinks what we call knowledge is a thing of some kind that exists somewhere, somehow, that can be described objectively - please produce evidence for the existence of such a thing. Let's wait with unbated breath.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions

Post by Peter Holmes »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:01 am If I may - a sidebar...

Any claim that begins 'Knowledge is...' can only ever be a description of the way(s) we use, or could use, the word 'knowledge', its cognates, such as 'know', and related words, such as 'ignorance'.

And that's it. Those are the only facts of the matter. And those facts - about linguistic practice - are out in the open.

If anyone thinks what we call knowledge is a thing of some kind that exists somewhere, somehow, that can be described objectively - please produce evidence for the existence of such a thing. Let's wait with unbated breath.
I just wanted to clarify some of the implications of what I wrote here some time ago - because many of the OPs and comments here testify to how deep and powerfully runs the myth of so-called abstract (or non-physical) things, such as concepts and propositions.

The default philosophical question - how in fact do we use these words, or how could we use them? - is a prophylactic against the temptation to dive down the rabbit hole. My point about knowledge applies to any abstract noun. So, to generalise:

A theory of [abstract noun] can only ever be a description of the way(s) we use, or could use, the word '[insert the same abstract noun]', its cognates and related words. (Signs such as words can mean only what we use them to mean. There is no other court of appeal.)

Competing theories of knowledge, such as empiricism, rationalism or constructivism, are all wild goose chases - which can be entertaining. And the complications ramify. For example, the JTB theory of knowledge appeals to truth and justification - spawning more lucubration: ah, but what are truth and justification?

The reason why philosophical questions have never been - and can never be - answered conclusively, is that they misfire. They seem to be about supposed abstract things - which are fictions.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions

Post by RCSaunders »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:01 am If I may - a sidebar...

Any claim that begins 'Knowledge is...' can only ever be a description of the way(s) we use, or could use, the word 'knowledge', its cognates, such as 'know', and related words, such as 'ignorance'.

And that's it. Those are the only facts of the matter. And those facts - about linguistic practice - are out in the open.

If anyone thinks what we call knowledge is a thing of some kind that exists somewhere, somehow, that can be described objectively - please produce evidence for the existence of such a thing. Let's wait with unbated breath.
You are using language to say all this. Since the ability to use language does not require one to have any knowledge of language, what to you call that faculty or capability which makes it possible for you to use language?

Of course knowledge does not exist in some geographical location or as an entity or substance, but there is knowledge and it is not nothing. Since you are adverse to calling it, "some kind of thing that exists ", what do you call it--or do you deny it altogether?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions

Post by Peter Holmes »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 4:57 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:01 am If I may - a sidebar...

Any claim that begins 'Knowledge is...' can only ever be a description of the way(s) we use, or could use, the word 'knowledge', its cognates, such as 'know', and related words, such as 'ignorance'.

And that's it. Those are the only facts of the matter. And those facts - about linguistic practice - are out in the open.

If anyone thinks what we call knowledge is a thing of some kind that exists somewhere, somehow, that can be described objectively - please produce evidence for the existence of such a thing. Let's wait with unbated breath.
You are using language to say all this. Since the ability to use language does not require one to have any knowledge of language, what to you call that faculty or capability which makes it possible for you to use language?

Of course knowledge does not exist in some geographical location or as an entity or substance, but there is knowledge and it is not nothing. Since you are adverse to calling it, "some kind of thing that exists ", what do you call it--or do you deny it altogether?
So knowledge is nowhere and is not an entity or substance. And yet 'there is knowledge and it is not nothing'.

Well, we talk about knowledge and knowing things. And we sometimes say there's knowledge in books and libraries. And we can pass on our knowledge to others. So what sort of thing can knowledge be? Ah, it must be a real, but non-physical thing that can manifest in physical ways. A bit like a god?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions

Post by RCSaunders »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 7:00 pm So knowledge is nowhere and is not an entity or substance. And yet 'there is knowledge and it is not nothing'.

Well, we talk about knowledge and knowing things. And we sometimes say there's knowledge in books and libraries. And we can pass on our knowledge to others. So what sort of thing can knowledge be? Ah, it must be a real, but non-physical thing that can manifest in physical ways. A bit like a god?
What God are you conscious of? If you have any knowledge, whatever you mean by that word, you must be conscious of it. You have created a false dichotomy: whatever is not physical must be mystical or supernatural, as though you had discovered some law of nature that forbids any attributes to existence except physical attributes that could be apprehended by direct perception. There is no such law. You can deny your own consciousness, of course, but you cannot make it a physical thing because it has absolutely no physical attributes.

That which has no physical attributes is not physical,
Consciousness has no physical attributes,
Therefore, consciousness is not physical.

Consciousness is not physical,
That which is not physical does not exist,
Therefore, consciousness does not exist.

But I am conscious and know it, contra hype.
What's wrong with the logic?
Post Reply