understanding knowledge

[Advocate]

The way we recognize truth is by way of knowledge. Knowledge is information that points the way towards that which is indefinitely replicable (The Truth). Because knowledge is explicitly a pointer toward truth it cannot be "justified true belief". That is a circular definition.

Because knowledge is always circumstantially verifiable and useful, it can only mean certainty Enough for that given purpose. Knowledge which always replicates, such as logic, is as good as ultimate truth "for all intents and purposes". Knowledge is "justified belief" and the amount of justification necessary is contingent.

[Terrapin Station]

Because knowledge is explicitly a pointer toward truth it cannot be "justified true belief".

Unless knowledge isn't "a pointer towards truth."

[Advocate]

[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=505306 time=1617204269 user_id=12582]
[quote=Advocate post_id=505297 time=1617202757 user_id=15238]
Because knowledge is explicitly a pointer toward truth it cannot be "justified true belief".
[/quote]
Unless knowledge[i] isn't[/i] "a pointer towards truth."
[/quote]

but it is. Do you suggest an alternative?

[Terrapin Station]

Because knowledge is explicitly a pointer toward truth it cannot be "justified true belief".

Unless knowledge isn't "a pointer towards truth."

but it is. Do you suggest an alternative?

I go with the old "justified belief."

Truth is a subjective assessment on my view about the relations of propositions to other things.

[Advocate]

>I go with the old "justified belief."

As do I. It is both necessary and sufficient.

>Truth is a subjective assessment on my view about the relations of propositions to other things.

Ok, but there are two very different definitions of subjective, arbitrary and contingent. The contingency of perspective, for example, is not always relevant and can often be adjusted for.

[Terrapin Station]

>I go with the old "justified belief."

As do I. It is both necessary and sufficient.

>Truth is a subjective assessment on my view about the relations of propositions to other things.

Ok, but there are two very different definitions of subjective, arbitrary and contingent. The contingency of perspective, for example, is not always relevant and can often be adjusted for.

I'm using it to refer to mental phenomena. There's no arbitrary/contingent distinction that's pertinent to that.

[Advocate]

[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=505322 time=1617206740 user_id=12582]
[quote=Advocate post_id=505318 time=1617205854 user_id=15238]
>I go with the old "justified belief."

As do I. It is both necessary and sufficient.

>Truth is a subjective assessment on my view about the relations of propositions to other things.

Ok, but there are two very different definitions of subjective, arbitrary and contingent. The contingency of perspective, for example, is not always relevant and can often be adjusted for.
[/quote]
I'm using it to refer to mental phenomena. There's no arbitrary/contingent distinction that's pertinent to that.
[/quote]

To be externally useful those ideas must be externally verifiable. Is there any internal idea that does not implicitly aim at external pragmatism? All human endeavour aims at changing the world and knowledge is no exception. But maybe that's just redundant to this conversation.

[Terrapin Station]

>I go with the old "justified belief."

As do I. It is both necessary and sufficient.

>Truth is a subjective assessment on my view about the relations of propositions to other things.

Ok, but there are two very different definitions of subjective, arbitrary and contingent. The contingency of perspective, for example, is not always relevant and can often be adjusted for.

I'm using it to refer to mental phenomena. There's no arbitrary/contingent distinction that's pertinent to that.

To be externally useful those ideas must be externally verifiable. Is there any internal idea that does not implicitly aim at external pragmatism? All human endeavour aims at changing the world and knowledge is no exception. But maybe that's just redundant to this conversation.

Huh? I don't think I agree with anything you said there. I particular don't agree with "All human endeavor aims at changing the world," unless you only mean that in the most trivial way possible (so that merely doing something amounts to "changing the world," for example).

[Skepdick]

I go with the old "justified belief."

Truth is a subjective assessment on my view about the relations of propositions to other things.

The JTB criterion utterly fucking useless.

Tomorrow I may or may not die.

By the law of excluded middle P ∨ ¬P ⇔ ⊤, the statement is therefore trivially true (but true none the less).
It is empirically justified because people sometimes people die; and sometimes people don't die.
I believe it.

Therefore the statement "Tomorrow I may or may not die" is Justified True Belief, ergo Knowledge.

If that's what knowledge is, I'll gladly give you some knowledge in exchange for toilet paper.

[Skepdick]

Huh? I don't think I agree with anything you said there. I particular don't agree with "All human endeavor aims at changing the world," unless you only mean that in the most trivial way possible (so that merely doing something amounts to "changing the world," for example).

It's at leas trivially true. And that's sufficient to say that it's never false.

[Advocate]

[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=505360 time=1617216021 user_id=12582]
...unless you only mean that in the most trivial way possible (so that merely doing something amounts to "changing the world," for example).
[/quote]

Yes but it's not only trivial. The big things are just a series of those smaller things.

[Advocate]

[quote=Skepdick post_id=505361 time=1617216426 user_id=17350]
[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=505316 time=1617205240 user_id=12582]
I go with the old "justified belief."

Truth is a subjective assessment on my view about the relations of propositions to other things.
[/quote]
The JTB criterion utterly fucking useless.

Tomorrow I may or may not die.

By the law of excluded middle P ∨ ¬P ⇔ ⊤, the statement is therefore trivially true (but true none the less).
It is empirically justified because people sometimes people die; and sometimes people don't die.
I believe it.

Therefore the statement "Tomorrow I may or may not die" is Justified True Belief, ergo Knowledge.

If that's what knowledge is, I'll gladly give you some knowledge in exchange for toilet paper.
[/quote]

All knowledge is more or less relevant to particular circumstances. Have you really never graduated elementary school?!

[Terrapin Station]

I go with the old "justified belief."

Truth is a subjective assessment on my view about the relations of propositions to other things.

The JTB criterion utterly fucking useless.

Tomorrow I may or may not die.

By the law of excluded middle P ∨ ¬P ⇔ ⊤, the statement is therefore trivially true (but true none the less).
It is empirically justified because people sometimes people die; and sometimes people don't die.
I believe it.

Therefore the statement "Tomorrow I may or may not die" is Justified True Belief, ergo Knowledge.

If that's what knowledge is, I'll gladly give you some knowledge in exchange for toilet paper.

All knowledge is more or less relevant to particular circumstances. Have you really never graduated elementary school?!

Yeah, knowledge, and belief in general, isn't limited to stuff one thinks is particularly important, that one cares very much about, or that one is very interested in.

[Skepdick]

All knowledge is more or less relevant to particular circumstances. Have you really never graduated elementary school?!

To what particular circumstance would you say the knowledge "Tomorrow you may or may not die" is relevant to?

[Advocate]

[quote=Skepdick post_id=505383 time=1617220153 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=505367 time=1617217306 user_id=15238]
All knowledge is more or less relevant to particular circumstances. Have you really never graduated elementary school?!
[/quote]
To what particular circumstance would you say the knowledge "Tomorrow you may or may not die" is relevant to?
[/quote]

It's relevant as an example of a dichotomy, as a stoic warning, maybe some other things.