the practical definition of knowledge

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=540830 time=1637988112 user_id=7896]
Truth = conformance with reality.
[/quote]

Justified belief - all the evidence points to x
Justified true belief - there is some transcendent version of reality that we can magically compare to the evidence

Nonsense. JTB is entirely useless. Conforming to reality can only be understood in relation to justified belief and we can never go beyond justified belief because there is literally nothing more available to us epistemologically.

Why can't people understand that to appeal to anything transcendent is to insert pure fantasy?

Truth can only be understood as that which continuously replicates, regardless of whether that state continues until any particular indefinite future time.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Advocate wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:36 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 5:41 am Truth = conformance with reality.
Justified belief - all the evidence points to x
Justified true belief - there is some transcendent version of reality that we can magically compare to the evidence

Nonsense. JTB is entirely useless. Conforming to reality can only be understood in relation to justified belief and we can never go beyond justified belief because there is literally nothing more available to us epistemologically.

Why can't people understand that to appeal to anything transcendent is to insert pure fantasy?

Truth can only be understood as that which continuously replicates, regardless of whether that state continues until any particular indefinite future time.
You are talking to yourself re any transcendent.
Btw, I am anti-philosophical realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Did you read my point above re;

The above belief of truths cannot be knowledge until it is justified via a specific framework and system of knowledge [FSK] where the scientific FSK is the present highest standard to be compared with.

As above, for me scientific knowledge is the most credible JTB we have at present.
Re Popper this scientific JTBs are merely 'polished conjectures.'
Are you saying scientific knowledge is useless?
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Skepdick »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 8:24 am The above belief of truths cannot be knowledge until it is justified via a specific framework and system of knowledge [FSK] where the scientific FSK is the present highest standard to be compared with.
Silly child.

If science is the framework which evaluates and validates knowledge, what is the framework which evaluates and validates other frameworks?

What framework would determine if something better than science has arrived on the scene?
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Advocate »

Science is rigor (and the body of knowledge so obtained). It's a scale from less to more rigorous. Certainty cannot be had without rigor, and the minimum that can mean is replication.

Logic is a sub-set of science that describes the relationships that always replicate, and is generalizable.

Math is a sub-set of logic that deals exclusively with relationships of quantity.

All knowledge can be understood in this context.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 8:28 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 8:24 am The above belief of truths cannot be knowledge until it is justified via a specific framework and system of knowledge [FSK] where the scientific FSK is the present highest standard to be compared with.
Silly child.

If science is the framework which evaluates and validates knowledge, what is the framework which evaluates and validates other frameworks?

What framework would determine if something better than science has arrived on the scene?
We have gone tru this a "1000 times."

It would be more silly for me to response to your cheap skate question.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Advocate wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 8:53 am Science is rigor (and the body of knowledge so obtained). It's a scale from less to more rigorous. Certainty cannot be had without rigor, and the minimum that can mean is replication.

Logic is a sub-set of science that describes the relationships that always replicate, and is generalizable.

Math is a sub-set of logic that deals exclusively with relationships of quantity.

All knowledge can be understood in this context.
I believe all knowledge can be understood in terms of a continuum from
1. opinions [fully subjective]
2. to beliefs [highly subjective with minimal objectivity]
3. to knowledge.[highly objective - justified- with minimal subjectivity.]

All knowledge must be justified and qualified to its specific constitutional Framework and System.
Thus I maintain knowledge is Justified True Beliefs in the above sense.

Logic is merely a tool for mathematics, science and the other types of knowledge.

Mathematics is also knowledge but mainly a tool for the other types of knowledge.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sat Nov 27, 2021 9:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Skepdick »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 8:54 am We have gone tru this a "1000 times."

It would be more silly for me to response to your cheap skate question.
We wouldn't have had to go through this even twice, if you actually addressed the question the first time I asked you.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 9:18 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 8:54 am We have gone tru this a "1000 times."

It would be more silly for me to response to your cheap skate question.
We wouldn't have had to go through this even twice, if you actually addressed the question the first time I asked you.
You are not thinking hard enough.

There is no need for another FSK to justify the scientific FSK.
The purpose of the scientific FSK is to produce scientific truths /knowledge.
Truth = conformance to reality. Knowledge is Justified True Beliefs.
Therefore the credibility of scientific FSK justification is measured by how well its scientific truths conform to reality and that is confirm by its usability as confirm by the trend of its popularity since 500 years ago.

Should there be any FSK that is more credible than the scientific FSK, then people will rely on the new FSK to the extreme that scientific FSK and its truths will be ignored for the new FSK and its truths.
Even if there is a new FSK [which I believe is unlikely] better than the current scientific FSK, I don't think the current scientific FSK will be abandoned.

Note within the scientific FSK itself, there are sub-FSKs within the Physics FSK.
Even there are improvements within the Physics FSK from classical-Newtonian Physics to Einsteinian to QM, the respective FSKs are still are still in use relative to their defined contexts.

The above answers were implied in the long winded time wasting posts and responses we went through.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Skepdick »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 9:59 am You are not thinking hard enough.

There is no need for another FSK to justify the scientific FSK.
The purpose of the scientific FSK is to produce scientific truths /knowledge.
Truth = conformance to reality. Knowledge is Justified True Beliefs.
Therefore the credibility of scientific FSK justification is measured by how well its scientific truths conform to reality and that is confirm by its usability as confirm by the trend of its popularity since 500 years ago.

Should there be any FSK that is more credible than the scientific FSK, then people will rely on the new FSK to the extreme that scientific FSK and its truths will be ignored for the new FSK and its truths.
Even if there is a new FSK [which I believe is unlikely] better than the current scientific FSK, I don't think the current scientific FSK will be abandoned.

Note within the scientific FSK itself, there are sub-FSKs within the Physics FSK.
Even there are improvements within the Physics FSK from classical-Newtonian Physics to Einsteinian to QM, the respective FSKs are still are still in use relative to their defined contexts.

The above answers were implied in the long winded time wasting posts and responses we went through.
What?!? Truth is a philosophical construct. Science doesn't deal with truth/conformance. The knowledge of scientists comes in the form of useful models. Which is why the adage All models are wrong - some are useful exists.

Models account for our experiences and help us predict phenomena. That in no way form or shape implies that the model "corresponds" to reality.
That is why we have model-dependent realism.

You've taken an ideological view of science, which probably suggests you have no idea what science is.

Science is instrumentalism.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Skepdick »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 8:24 am Btw, I am anti-philosophical realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 9:59 am Truth = conformance to reality. Knowledge is Justified True Beliefs.
You cannot be anti-realism AND believe in truth as conformance.

What is Truth supposed to conform to?!?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:03 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 9:59 am You are not thinking hard enough.

There is no need for another FSK to justify the scientific FSK.
The purpose of the scientific FSK is to produce scientific truths /knowledge.
Truth = conformance to reality. Knowledge is Justified True Beliefs.
Therefore the credibility of scientific FSK justification is measured by how well its scientific truths conform to reality and that is confirm by its usability as confirm by the trend of its popularity since 500 years ago.

Should there be any FSK that is more credible than the scientific FSK, then people will rely on the new FSK to the extreme that scientific FSK and its truths will be ignored for the new FSK and its truths.
Even if there is a new FSK [which I believe is unlikely] better than the current scientific FSK, I don't think the current scientific FSK will be abandoned.

Note within the scientific FSK itself, there are sub-FSKs within the Physics FSK.
Even there are improvements within the Physics FSK from classical-Newtonian Physics to Einsteinian to QM, the respective FSKs are still are still in use relative to their defined contexts.

The above answers were implied in the long winded time wasting posts and responses we went through.
What?!? Science doesn't deal with truth/conformance. The knowledge of scientists comes in the form of useful models. Which is why the adage All models are wrong - some are useful exists.

Models account for our experiences and help us predict phenomena. That in no way form or shape implies that the model "corresponds" to reality.
That is why we have model-dependent realism.

You've taken an ideological view of science, which probably suggests you have no idea what science is.

Science is instrumentalism
I have stated scientific truths are at best "polished conjectures" thus with the nearest conformance to reality, not 100% conformance to reality.
The scientific models or knowledge are near conformance or representation of reality.

I stated Scientific Truths are generated from within the Scientific FSK with its agreed Constitution.
In its constitution, it will define what its 'truths' and what 'reality' meant which is not the same as the philosophical ones you listed above.

If it is a scientific truth that 'if humans inhale a certain quantity of X, all or a majority will die,' and this is confirm by observations by scientists and lay-persons that would be taken a conformance to reality.
If you do not agree with truth = conformance to reality in this case, then you are likely to ignore such truth and will inhale X.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:08 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 8:24 am Btw, I am anti-philosophical realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 9:59 am Truth = conformance to reality. Knowledge is Justified True Beliefs.
You cannot be anti-realism AND believe in truth as conformance.

What is Truth supposed to conform to?!?
Why not?
I am not believing in an absolute reality that is independent of the human mind.

If the scientific truth is that 'the Earth orbit the Sun', that is very evident such truth conform to the reality that 'the Earth orbit the Sun' which can be repeatedly verified and justified by any one if they were to test this truth.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Skepdick »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:26 am Why not?
I am not believing in an absolute reality that is independent of the human mind.
Because you believe in conformance!

You believe that some claims conform. Such as: THIS COLOR IS BLUE.
And you also believe that other claims DON'T conform. Such as THIS COLOR IS BLUE.

So the trivial question is this: What determines conformance TO reality?
What determines the conformity between the English claim "This is red" and THIS COLOR?
Last edited by Skepdick on Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:55 am, edited 2 times in total.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Skepdick »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:18 am I have stated scientific truths are at best "polished conjectures" thus with the nearest conformance to reality, not 100% conformance to reality.
The more adjectives you keep adding, the deeper hole you keep digging for yourself.

Not only can you NOT answer the question "What determines conformance?"
But now you also can't answer the question "What determines near conformance vs non-near conformance?"
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:32 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:26 am Why not?
I am not believing in an absolute reality that is independent of the human mind.
Because you believe in conformance!

You believe that some claims conform. Such as: THIS COLOR IS BLUE.
And you also believe that other claims DON'T conform. Such as THIS COLOR IS BLUE.

So the trivial question is this: What determines conformance TO reality?
Your thinking is too dogmatic.

I believe reality is not independent of human conditions but rather in a way interdependent with humans.

"You believe that some claims conform. Such as: THIS COLOR IS BLUE."
Yes!
THIS COLOR IS BLUE because the majority of humans believe and has justified it according to the scientific FSK of the fact
THIS COLOR IS BLUE.

Such human interdependent realism is useful to detect people with color-blindness and for other useful purposes.

To claim such,
THIS COLOR IS BLUE,
is merely stupidity relative our current understand and agreement of what is reality and it could cause fatalities as well.
Post Reply