Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

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

Post by henry quirk »

Some time back, before I went crazy with deism, spirit, agent causation, natural rights, moral realism, and all that other spooky stuff, I would say I was conscious, not that I had consciousness.

I'd say: I'm conscious, it's what I am. It's what I do. Like walking is what legs do. Consciousness, then, I'd say, is action, process.

In the same way, I'd say I think, I feel, I experience; I wouldn't say I have thoughts or feelings or experiences.

The latter are things, the former are actions, processes.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

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

Post by Peter Holmes »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 3:53 pm
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?
The premise, 'consciousness has no physical attributes' begs the question. That's supposed to be your conclusion.

And all the scientific evidence I'm aware of indicates that what we call consciousness is exclusively the product of neural (physical) activity, so the premise is also false, or at least not shown to be true.

How can a physical cause have a non-physical effect? What is the causal mechanism? Saying the effect (here, consciousness) must be or just is non-physical doesn't answer those questions.

Consider the different ways we use the word 'consciousness' and its cognates and related words. Do you think awareness has no physical attributes? Or is being awake a non-physical state?

It's only if we reify consciousness - or any supposed non-physical thing - that we have to pretend that it's non-physical.
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 »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 4:19 pm Some time back, before I went crazy with deism, spirit, agent causation, natural rights, moral realism, and all that other spooky stuff, I would say I was conscious, not that I had consciousness.

I'd say: I'm conscious, it's what I am. It's what I do. Like walking is what legs do. Consciousness, then, I'd say, is action, process.

In the same way, I'd say I think, I feel, I experience; I wouldn't say I have thoughts or feelings or experiences.

The latter are things, the former are actions, processes.
That's good Henry. One way of explaining perception is that is something an organism does--it sees, hears, feels, smells, and tastes things. Perception is not a thing or some kind of stuff, but something an organism does.
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: Sun Mar 13, 2022 5:27 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 3:53 pm
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?
The premise, 'consciousness has no physical attributes' begs the question. That's supposed to be your conclusion.
I'm not sure what you mean by consciousness, but what I mean is my actual conscious experience. I mean the conscious experience of a pain, for example. A pain I feel (am conscious of) has no shape, size, color, mass, momentum or any other physical attribute. I'm not talking about what causes the pain, or why I have the pain, my consciousness is only the pain I actually feel.
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 5:27 pm And all the scientific evidence I'm aware of indicates that what we call consciousness is exclusively the product of neural (physical) activity, so the premise is also false, or at least not shown to be true.

How can a physical cause have a non-physical effect? What is the causal mechanism? Saying the effect (here, consciousness) must be or just is non-physical doesn't answer those questions.

Consider the different ways we use the word 'consciousness' and its cognates and related words. Do you think awareness has no physical attributes? Or is being aware a non-physical state?

It's only if we reify consciousness - or any supposed non-physical thing - that we have to pretend that it's non-physical.
The problem for me in appealing to physical evidence is that there is no physical evidence for my conscious experience. No matter how carefully the neurological system and brain are examined and studied, no actual pains, smells, or images as I actually experience them are or can be discovered. All that can be discovered are some physical/electrical/chemical events, and those events can only be associated with an individual's conscious experience on the testimony of the individual. But I definitely feel pain, smell scents, and see images, and no physical event is or explains them.

I do not make the assumption you make, that something must cause consciousness. It is as much a natural attribute or faculty of the organisms that have it as their weight. Nothing else causes weight, it's just an attribute of physical things, and consciousness is just an attribute of those organisms that have it. So there is no problem of how does the physical cause the non-physical. It doesn't. Nothing else makes or causes it. [Not making an argument here, just explaining the difference in our view.]

Now, if you don't mind, I'd like to ask a question about something you said in an earlier post.
You described what you called the,
myth of so-called abstract (or non-physical) things, such as concepts and propositions.
My question is only about the word, "abstract," and what you mean by that word. It appears you think concepts and propositions are abstract things.

My question: Do you regard concepts and propositions to be abstract, and if you do, what do you mean by abstract?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

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

Post by Peter Holmes »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 2:14 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 5:27 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 3:53 pm
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?
The premise, 'consciousness has no physical attributes' begs the question. That's supposed to be your conclusion.
I'm not sure what you mean by consciousness, but what I mean is my actual conscious experience. I mean the conscious experience of a pain, for example. A pain I feel (am conscious of) has no shape, size, color, mass, momentum or any other physical attribute. I'm not talking about what causes the pain, or why I have the pain, my consciousness is only the pain I actually feel.
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 5:27 pm And all the scientific evidence I'm aware of indicates that what we call consciousness is exclusively the product of neural (physical) activity, so the premise is also false, or at least not shown to be true.

How can a physical cause have a non-physical effect? What is the causal mechanism? Saying the effect (here, consciousness) must be or just is non-physical doesn't answer those questions.

Consider the different ways we use the word 'consciousness' and its cognates and related words. Do you think awareness has no physical attributes? Or is being aware a non-physical state?

It's only if we reify consciousness - or any supposed non-physical thing - that we have to pretend that it's non-physical.
The problem for me in appealing to physical evidence is that there is no physical evidence for my conscious experience. No matter how carefully the neurological system and brain are examined and studied, no actual pains, smells, or images as I actually experience them are or can be discovered. All that can be discovered are some physical/electrical/chemical events, and those events can only be associated with an individual's conscious experience on the testimony of the individual. But I definitely feel pain, smell scents, and see images, and no physical event is or explains them.

I do not make the assumption you make, that something must cause consciousness. It is as much a natural attribute or faculty of the organisms that have it as their weight. Nothing else causes weight, it's just an attribute of physical things, and consciousness is just an attribute of those organisms that have it. So there is no problem of how does the physical cause the non-physical. It doesn't. Nothing else makes or causes it. [Not making an argument here, just explaining the difference in our view.]

Now, if you don't mind, I'd like to ask a question about something you said in an earlier post.
You described what you called the,
myth of so-called abstract (or non-physical) things, such as concepts and propositions.
My question is only about the word, "abstract," and what you mean by that word. It appears you think concepts and propositions are abstract things.

My question: Do you regard concepts and propositions to be abstract, and if you do, what do you mean by abstract?
Here's the first dictionary definition I googled:

adjective
/ˈabstrakt/
1.
existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.
"abstract concepts such as love or beauty"

Notice the myth of so-called abstract things at work - the power of the metaphor. Notice the equivocation on 'existing' and 'existence'. Notice the uselessness of the explanation: an abstract thing exists in or as another abstract thing. The daddy abstract thing - the mind - is just assumed. It's question-begging from start to finish.

This is the potent and persistent legacy of an ancient dualist delusion, with the embarrassing religious baggage of the soul conveniently forgotten.

The standard reaction I have from trained or qualified philosophers is that I obviously don't even know what concepts and propositions are. I suggest critical thinking, but the emperor is and must surely be finely arrayed.

(PS. I think your weight analogy is extraordinary: nothing causes weight - it's just an attribute of physical things; so weight is non-physical. !)
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: Mon Mar 14, 2022 9:17 am
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 2:14 am Now, if you don't mind, I'd like to ask a question about something you said in an earlier post.
You described what you called the,
myth of so-called abstract (or non-physical) things, such as concepts and propositions.
My question is only about the word, "abstract," and what you mean by that word. It appears you think concepts and propositions are abstract things.

My question: Do you regard concepts and propositions to be abstract, and if you do, what do you mean by abstract?
Here's the first dictionary definition I googled:

adjective
/ˈabstrakt/
1.
existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.
"abstract concepts such as love or beauty"

Notice the myth of so-called abstract things at work - the power of the metaphor. Notice the equivocation on 'existing' and 'existence'. Notice the uselessness of the explanation: an abstract thing exists in or as another abstract thing. The daddy abstract thing - the mind - is just assumed. It's question-begging from start to finish.

This is the potent and persistent legacy of an ancient dualist delusion, with the embarrassing religious baggage of the soul conveniently forgotten.

The standard reaction I have from trained or qualified philosophers is that I obviously don't even know what concepts and propositions are. I suggest critical thinking, but the emperor is and must surely be finely arrayed.
Thanks Peter! I'm quite familiar with the dictionary definitions of abstract. What I was really interested in is what you mean when you call a concept an abstraction, which would depend on what you mean by a concept, I suppose.
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 9:17 am (PS. I think your weight analogy is extraordinary: nothing causes weight - it's just an attribute of physical things; so weight is non-physical. !)
Good grief. I have no idea whatever I wrote that made you think I regard weight to be, "non-physical." My point would have been that weight is very definitely a physical attribute that does not require something else to make it exist. It is an attribute of a real thing and it exists because the real thing with that attribute exists, else it wouldn't exist at all. I'm sure my point was something like: life is an attribute of a real thing (an organism) and it exists because the real thing with that attribute exists, else it wouldn't exist at all. It, like weight, is a real attribute that does not require something else to make it exist.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

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

Post by Peter Holmes »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 3:31 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 9:17 am
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 2:14 am Now, if you don't mind, I'd like to ask a question about something you said in an earlier post.
You described what you called the,

My question is only about the word, "abstract," and what you mean by that word. It appears you think concepts and propositions are abstract things.

My question: Do you regard concepts and propositions to be abstract, and if you do, what do you mean by abstract?
Here's the first dictionary definition I googled:

adjective
/ˈabstrakt/
1.
existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.
"abstract concepts such as love or beauty"

Notice the myth of so-called abstract things at work - the power of the metaphor. Notice the equivocation on 'existing' and 'existence'. Notice the uselessness of the explanation: an abstract thing exists in or as another abstract thing. The daddy abstract thing - the mind - is just assumed. It's question-begging from start to finish.

This is the potent and persistent legacy of an ancient dualist delusion, with the embarrassing religious baggage of the soul conveniently forgotten.

The standard reaction I have from trained or qualified philosophers is that I obviously don't even know what concepts and propositions are. I suggest critical thinking, but the emperor is and must surely be finely arrayed.
Thanks Peter! I'm quite familiar with the dictionary definitions of abstract. What I was really interested in is what you mean when you call a concept an abstraction, which would depend on what you mean by a concept, I suppose.
Here's another dictionary definition, with which you're probably familiar:

concept
noun
an abstract idea.

Trouble is, the word 'concept' is just posh for the word 'idea'. Unless you think there's a difference - in which case, what is it? And in the expression 'abstract idea', what distinction does the word 'abstract' make? Are there concrete ideas that are, by contrast, physical?

What I'm pointing out is that this is a complete mess that has passed and is passing for rational thought - when it's patent nonsense.

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 9:17 am (PS. I think your weight analogy is extraordinary: nothing causes weight - it's just an attribute of physical things; so weight is non-physical. !)
Good grief. I have no idea whatever I wrote that made you think I regard weight to be, "non-physical." My point would have been that weight is very definitely a physical attribute that does not require something else to make it exist. It is an attribute of a real thing and it exists because the real thing with that attribute exists, else it wouldn't exist at all. I'm sure my point was something like: life is an attribute of a real thing (an organism) and it exists because the real thing with that attribute exists, else it wouldn't exist at all. It, like weight, is a real attribute that does not require something else to make it exist.
I apologise. I must have misunderstood. You seemed to be claiming that there are real non-physical things. And you offered what we call consciousness as an example, and then offered weight as an analogous case. You say it's 'a real attribute that does not require something else to make it exist'. But that's also nonsense. It requires physical things, without which which there could be no weight. Just as what we call consciousness requires a brain for it to exist.

To repeat, if we don't reify these things, we don't need to account for their existence by inventing the category: 'real, non-physical things'. (Which is, as you agree, a Platonic delusion.)
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: Mon Mar 14, 2022 9:27 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 3:31 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 9:17 am
Here's the first dictionary definition I googled:

adjective
/ˈabstrakt/
1.
existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.
"abstract concepts such as love or beauty"

Notice the myth of so-called abstract things at work - the power of the metaphor. Notice the equivocation on 'existing' and 'existence'. Notice the uselessness of the explanation: an abstract thing exists in or as another abstract thing. The daddy abstract thing - the mind - is just assumed. It's question-begging from start to finish.

This is the potent and persistent legacy of an ancient dualist delusion, with the embarrassing religious baggage of the soul conveniently forgotten.

The standard reaction I have from trained or qualified philosophers is that I obviously don't even know what concepts and propositions are. I suggest critical thinking, but the emperor is and must surely be finely arrayed.
Thanks Peter! I'm quite familiar with the dictionary definitions of abstract. What I was really interested in is what you mean when you call a concept an abstraction, which would depend on what you mean by a concept, I suppose.
Here's another dictionary definition, with which you're probably familiar:

concept
noun
an abstract idea.

Trouble is, the word 'concept' is just posh for the word 'idea'. Unless you think there's a difference - in which case, what is it? And in the expression 'abstract idea', what distinction does the word 'abstract' make? Are there concrete ideas that are, by contrast, physical?

What I'm pointing out is that this is a complete mess that has passed and is passing for rational thought - when it's patent nonsense.


Most of what you are describing is just patent nonsense, but you and I do not mean the same thing by the term, "comcept.' You are describing what goes by the term. "concept," in the epistemology of most philosophers.

What I do mean by, "concept," would require an explanation of epistemology, which cannot be done here. As far as I know, no one else has an epistemology even similar to my own, much less the same. I'll only say, a word is not a concept. It is, like the description of a physical relationship (F=MA, or E=IR, for example) a way, [and the only way] of identifying any entity, phenomenon, attribute, relationship or collection of same. Without concepts, there is no "rational thought," no,"science," no, "meaning," and "no cognition."

[I hope you weren't serious about, "critical thinking," or perhaps you are unaware of its cultural Marxist origins and its present day permutations, such as CRT.]
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

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

Post by Peter Holmes »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 1:52 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 9:27 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 3:31 pm
Thanks Peter! I'm quite familiar with the dictionary definitions of abstract. What I was really interested in is what you mean when you call a concept an abstraction, which would depend on what you mean by a concept, I suppose.
Here's another dictionary definition, with which you're probably familiar:

concept
noun
an abstract idea.

Trouble is, the word 'concept' is just posh for the word 'idea'. Unless you think there's a difference - in which case, what is it? And in the expression 'abstract idea', what distinction does the word 'abstract' make? Are there concrete ideas that are, by contrast, physical?

What I'm pointing out is that this is a complete mess that has passed and is passing for rational thought - when it's patent nonsense.


Most of what you are describing is just patent nonsense, but you and I do not mean the same thing by the term, "comcept.' You are describing what goes by the term. "concept," in the epistemology of most philosophers.

What I do mean by, "concept," would require an explanation of epistemology, which cannot be done here. As far as I know, no one else has an epistemology even similar to my own, much less the same. I'll only say, a word is not a concept. It is, like the description of a physical relationship (F=MA, or E=IR, for example) a way, [and the only way] of identifying any entity, phenomenon, attribute, relationship or collection of same. Without concepts, there is no "rational thought," no,"science," no, "meaning," and "no cognition."

[I hope you weren't serious about, "critical thinking," or perhaps you are unaware of its cultural Marxist origins and its present day permutations, such as CRT.]
Okay. There are dogs (real things); we use the word 'dog' (a real thing) to talk about them; and there's supposed to be another thing, the so-called concept of a dog, which is supposed to be an unreal or abstract thing that hangs around in the mind - another unreal or abstract thing.

I think concepts are fictions designed to fit in with the reification of mentalist talk which is, in fact, purely metaphorical.

But I don't think it would be fruitful to pursue our disagreement.

(Critical thinking: 'Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments to form a judgment. The subject is complex; several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, and unbiased analysis or evaluation of factual evidence.' It's the only rational approach - and applied to invented things, such as concepts, it usually demolishes them.)
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9452
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

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

Post by Harbal »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jul 26, 2017 2:13 pm

But Gettier-cases also contain the solution to the Gettier problem. The protagonists believe things for reasons that don't objectively justify their beliefs, which is why their beliefs don't amount to knowledge. Objective knowledge of features of reality, which may be expressed by means of true factual assertions, frees us from subjective, epistemic isolation. It's the objective knowledge that we Gettier-spectators have.
The only thing happening here is an attempt at applying a precise definition to a word. In this case the word, “knowledge”. This is simply a discussion about what, precisely, does the word knowledge mean. Well, it means whatever its user has decided it means. Words are not objects with an independent existence out in the universe. They are just synthetic constructions that represent ideas. If the idea a word stands for is simple and basic, its definition will be more precise than that of a word that represents a more complicated idea. It seems to me that most arguments come about because of a failure to recognise this.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8481
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

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

Post by Sculptor »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 10:13 am
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 1:52 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 9:27 pm
Here's another dictionary definition, with which you're probably familiar:

concept
noun
an abstract idea.

Trouble is, the word 'concept' is just posh for the word 'idea'. Unless you think there's a difference - in which case, what is it? And in the expression 'abstract idea', what distinction does the word 'abstract' make? Are there concrete ideas that are, by contrast, physical?

What I'm pointing out is that this is a complete mess that has passed and is passing for rational thought - when it's patent nonsense.


Most of what you are describing is just patent nonsense, but you and I do not mean the same thing by the term, "comcept.' You are describing what goes by the term. "concept," in the epistemology of most philosophers.

What I do mean by, "concept," would require an explanation of epistemology, which cannot be done here. As far as I know, no one else has an epistemology even similar to my own, much less the same. I'll only say, a word is not a concept. It is, like the description of a physical relationship (F=MA, or E=IR, for example) a way, [and the only way] of identifying any entity, phenomenon, attribute, relationship or collection of same. Without concepts, there is no "rational thought," no,"science," no, "meaning," and "no cognition."

[I hope you weren't serious about, "critical thinking," or perhaps you are unaware of its cultural Marxist origins and its present day permutations, such as CRT.]
Okay. There are dogs (real things); we use the word 'dog' (a real thing) to talk about them; and there's supposed to be another thing, the so-called concept of a dog, which is supposed to be an unreal or abstract thing that hangs around in the mind - another unreal or abstract thing.

I think concepts are fictions designed to fit in with the reification of mentalist talk which is, in fact, purely metaphorical.

But I don't think it would be fruitful to pursue our disagreement.

(Critical thinking: 'Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments to form a judgment. The subject is complex; several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, and unbiased analysis or evaluation of factual evidence.' It's the only rational approach - and applied to invented things, such as concepts, it usually demolishes them.)
Dog is not even real. Humans are interested agents who for some reason want to make categories and find things that justify that category. It would not be too hard to imagine an alien race that saw all cats, dogs, and humans as quanta of a biological scum.
If they were also interested in categories, dogs would just be so much mass of oxygen-carbon cycle bio-scum type 3. Other planets would have different attributions.

Concepts are fictions, but all words are metaphorical in exactly this way.

Your parenthetical end statement is wrong. CT has to recognise that all statements are biased. Without bias no one could have any kind of point of view. The trick is to make that obvious and open, otherwise you are no better than the thing you are holding up to the light of scepticism. If CT only produces one reflexion or answer then it has failed.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

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

Post by Peter Holmes »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 11:05 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 10:13 am
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 1:52 am

Most of what you are describing is just patent nonsense, but you and I do not mean the same thing by the term, "comcept.' You are describing what goes by the term. "concept," in the epistemology of most philosophers.

What I do mean by, "concept," would require an explanation of epistemology, which cannot be done here. As far as I know, no one else has an epistemology even similar to my own, much less the same. I'll only say, a word is not a concept. It is, like the description of a physical relationship (F=MA, or E=IR, for example) a way, [and the only way] of identifying any entity, phenomenon, attribute, relationship or collection of same. Without concepts, there is no "rational thought," no,"science," no, "meaning," and "no cognition."

[I hope you weren't serious about, "critical thinking," or perhaps you are unaware of its cultural Marxist origins and its present day permutations, such as CRT.]
Okay. There are dogs (real things); we use the word 'dog' (a real thing) to talk about them; and there's supposed to be another thing, the so-called concept of a dog, which is supposed to be an unreal or abstract thing that hangs around in the mind - another unreal or abstract thing.

I think concepts are fictions designed to fit in with the reification of mentalist talk which is, in fact, purely metaphorical.

But I don't think it would be fruitful to pursue our disagreement.

(Critical thinking: 'Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments to form a judgment. The subject is complex; several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, and unbiased analysis or evaluation of factual evidence.' It's the only rational approach - and applied to invented things, such as concepts, it usually demolishes them.)
Dog is not even real. Humans are interested agents who for some reason want to make categories and find things that justify that category. It would not be too hard to imagine an alien race that saw all cats, dogs, and humans as quanta of a biological scum.
If they were also interested in categories, dogs would just be so much mass of oxygen-carbon cycle bio-scum type 3. Other planets would have different attributions.

Concepts are fictions, but all words are metaphorical in exactly this way.

Your parenthetical end statement is wrong. CT has to recognise that all statements are biased. Without bias no one could have any kind of point of view. The trick is to make that obvious and open, otherwise you are no better than the thing you are holding up to the light of scepticism. If CT only produces one reflexion or answer then it has failed.
Claptrap.

1 Categorising (naming and describing) doesn't create the reality being categorised (named and described). And humans don't do it 'for some reason'. It's purposive or instrumental. And of course an alien species could do it completely differently. But so what?

2 The word 'dog' is not a metaphor.

3 Cognitive/confirmation bias is one of the facts that critical thinking (rational skepticism) takes into account. That's its whole purpose.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8481
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

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

Post by Sculptor »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 2:19 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 11:05 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 10:13 am
Okay. There are dogs (real things); we use the word 'dog' (a real thing) to talk about them; and there's supposed to be another thing, the so-called concept of a dog, which is supposed to be an unreal or abstract thing that hangs around in the mind - another unreal or abstract thing.

I think concepts are fictions designed to fit in with the reification of mentalist talk which is, in fact, purely metaphorical.

But I don't think it would be fruitful to pursue our disagreement.

(Critical thinking: 'Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments to form a judgment. The subject is complex; several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, and unbiased analysis or evaluation of factual evidence.' It's the only rational approach - and applied to invented things, such as concepts, it usually demolishes them.)
Dog is not even real. Humans are interested agents who for some reason want to make categories and find things that justify that category. It would not be too hard to imagine an alien race that saw all cats, dogs, and humans as quanta of a biological scum.
If they were also interested in categories, dogs would just be so much mass of oxygen-carbon cycle bio-scum type 3. Other planets would have different attributions.

Concepts are fictions, but all words are metaphorical in exactly this way.

Your parenthetical end statement is wrong. CT has to recognise that all statements are biased. Without bias no one could have any kind of point of view. The trick is to make that obvious and open, otherwise you are no better than the thing you are holding up to the light of scepticism. If CT only produces one reflexion or answer then it has failed.
Claptrap.

1 Categorising (naming and describing) doesn't create the reality being categorised (named and described). And humans don't do it 'for some reason'. It's purposive or instrumental. And of course an alien species could do it completely differently. But so what?

2 The word 'dog' is not a metaphor.

3 Cognitive/confirmation bias is one of the facts that critical thinking (rational skepticism) takes into account. That's its whole purpose.
Yes the word dog is a metaphor - you practically say so yourself.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

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

Post by Peter Holmes »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 2:32 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 2:19 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 11:05 am
Dog is not even real. Humans are interested agents who for some reason want to make categories and find things that justify that category. It would not be too hard to imagine an alien race that saw all cats, dogs, and humans as quanta of a biological scum.
If they were also interested in categories, dogs would just be so much mass of oxygen-carbon cycle bio-scum type 3. Other planets would have different attributions.

Concepts are fictions, but all words are metaphorical in exactly this way.

Your parenthetical end statement is wrong. CT has to recognise that all statements are biased. Without bias no one could have any kind of point of view. The trick is to make that obvious and open, otherwise you are no better than the thing you are holding up to the light of scepticism. If CT only produces one reflexion or answer then it has failed.
Claptrap.

1 Categorising (naming and describing) doesn't create the reality being categorised (named and described). And humans don't do it 'for some reason'. It's purposive or instrumental. And of course an alien species could do it completely differently. But so what?

2 The word 'dog' is not a metaphor.

3 Cognitive/confirmation bias is one of the facts that critical thinking (rational skepticism) takes into account. That's its whole purpose.
Yes the word dog is a metaphor - you practically say so yourself.
Metaphor: 'a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.'

We use the word 'dog' to name the thing we call a dog. If that name is a metaphor, what would be the literally applicable name for a dog? If there's no literal use of language, the literal/metaphorical distinction is void, and the claim that something is a metaphor is incoherent.
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

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

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=322242 time=1501074810 user_id=15099]
The Gettier problem is that some cases of justified true belief don't amount to knowledge, so the JTB definition is inadequate.
[/quote]

Justified belief is both necessary and sufficient for all meaningful uses of knowledge.
Post Reply