justified and sufficient, not true

[Advocate]

Knowledge is justified belief, never true by some eventual hypothetical ultimate standard, always true in relation to a specific use-case. As sure as possible always counts as knowledge. Sufficient knowledge is all there ever can be, because information is infinite, and our minds not so much. When we're sure enough to accept the fact or take the action, that's the upper limit, because there's no reason to gather or integrate more information at that point.

[Peter Holmes]

Knowledge is justified belief, never true by some eventual hypothetical ultimate standard, always true in relation to a specific use-case. As sure as possible always counts as knowledge. Sufficient knowledge is all there ever can be, because information is infinite, and our minds not so much. When we're sure enough to accept the fact or take the action, that's the upper limit, because there's no reason to gather or integrate more information at that point.

Here are some philosophical dichotomies.

Complete, ultimate knowledge / sufficient knowledge
Infinite information / finite information (or a finite capacity to process information)
Absolute truth / contingent, contextual truth

Two observations.

1 If one option of a dichotomy is an impossibility, or an incoherent expression, then there's no dichotomy. And in that case, there's no reason to call knowledge merely 'sufficient', information or a mind that processes it merely 'finite', or truth merely 'contingent or contextual'. And this applies to all the invented dichotomies in philosophy.

2 There's no reason to think that what we call knowledge and truth are things of some kind - abstract things? - that need to be described or explained anyway. And this applies to all the so-called abstract things that philosophy supposedly deals with.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Knowledge is justified belief, never true by some eventual hypothetical ultimate standard, always true in relation to a specific use-case. As sure as possible always counts as knowledge. Sufficient knowledge is all there ever can be, because information is infinite, and our minds not so much. When we're sure enough to accept the fact or take the action, that's the upper limit, because there's no reason to gather or integrate more information at that point.

Here are some philosophical dichotomies.

Complete, ultimate knowledge / sufficient knowledge
Infinite information / finite information (or a finite capacity to process information)
Absolute truth / contingent, contextual truth

Two observations.

1 If one option of a dichotomy is an impossibility, or an incoherent expression, then there's no dichotomy. And in that case, there's no reason to call knowledge merely 'sufficient', information or a mind that processes it merely 'finite', or truth merely 'contingent or contextual'. And this applies to all the invented dichotomies in philosophy.

2 There's no reason to think that what we call knowledge and truth are things of some kind - abstract things? - that need to be described or explained anyway. And this applies to all the so-called abstract things that philosophy supposedly deals with.

PH, you have been throwing terms around and letting them float and swirl in mid air without any solid foundation, theory nor sound philosophy, e.g. truth-bearers [proposition], truth-makers [facts], states-of-affairs, that is the case, obtain, if and only iff, etc.

Without any solid foundation you have the gall to denounce there are no moral facts!

Recently I have reading up on philosophies and theories surrounding the above terms and there is nothing solid to it since the logical positivists.
Every proposal by any analytical philosopher is countered by another without any reasonable ending because everyone involved is groping around without foundation.

If you are relying on Wittgenstein, note he had a lot of weakness and limitations [note his 'On Certainty'], thus no solid ground for you. So far, you have not provided any reference to your philosophical claims but merely making noises with your own views.

For me, I have already stated by grounds are based on Kant's Philosophy, science, and others.

So 'what are you' and 'who are you' relying to ground/support your philosophy?
If you admit you cannot I can give you some clues.

[Iwannaplato]

So 'what are you' and 'who are you' relying to ground your philosophy?

What VA calls ground {verb] in philosophy is called an appeal to authority, which is a fallacy. He means that PH can't just make arguments and interact with other thinkers here. He should cite and quote people in appeals to authority as VA does.

If one follows VA you can see he uses quotes and links 1) to people whose positions positions he doesn't understand 2) to articles he has only read in part and does not understand the context 3) and as evidence. IOW things X said Y so my position is correct. Some physicists say Z so physics has a consensus so if you believe T you are behind the times.

Now he is admonishing PH for not performing the same set of lazy, fallacious acts.

And just to be clear, it can be fine to use quotes and links as part of arguments. But you should actually read the people involved and also understand that these demonstrate the positions of specific people and portions of some groups. He does neither.

[Age]

Knowledge is justified belief, never true by some eventual hypothetical ultimate standard, always true in relation to a specific use-case.

But 'knowledge' is NOT necessarily 'justified belief' AT ALL.

As sure as possible always counts as knowledge. Sufficient knowledge is all there ever can be, because information is infinite, and our minds not so much. When we're sure enough to accept the fact or take the action, that's the upper limit, because there's no reason to gather or integrate more information at that point.

OBVIOUSLY, while one is BELIEVING or DISBELIEVING some thing is true, then there is absolutely NO reason WHATSOEVER for that one to gather or integrate absolutely ANY more information at that point.

[Advocate]

>Here are some philosophical dichotomies.

>Complete, ultimate knowledge / sufficient knowledge
>Infinite information / finite information (or a finite capacity to process information)
>Absolute truth / contingent, contextual truth

Dichotomy - a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different.

Each instance here includes b) as far along the scale as it's currently possible to go, a) further along the scale than that. Being both at the same extreme end of the same scale, those are almost as little "opposed or entirely different" as it's possible to be. That there is opposition of some kind does not make the term dichotomy appropriate.

But there really is no opposition. B is real, obvious, and absolute. A is hypothetical, speculative, ineffable. It's a category mistake to compare the materially limiting Real with the hypothetical extension of possible.

[Advocate]

[quote=Age post_id=578484 time=1655547564 user_id=16237]
But 'knowledge' is NOT necessarily 'justified belief' AT ALL.

OBVIOUSLY, while one is BELIEVING or DISBELIEVING some thing is true, then there is absolutely NO reason WHATSOEVER for that one to gather or integrate absolutely ANY more information at that point.
[/quote]

Justified belief is what knowledge is. It's not Necessary to have a word for justified belief, but that's precisely the work the word knowledge happens to mean for us.

Not so. Many times someone believes something, even vehemently, but are given pause when the time comes for actual application because what they thought to be sufficient surety turns out not to have been. You can be certain in a moment without that implying certain in general.

There is false or inflated belief which dissolves in the face of reality, or that is sufficient for most cases but not all. Belief isn't merely sufficient. Justified belief is necessary. Whether a belief is actually justified is a separate issue

[bobmax]

Knowledge is justified belief, never true by some eventual hypothetical ultimate standard, always true in relation to a specific use-case. As sure as possible always counts as knowledge. Sufficient knowledge is all there ever can be, because information is infinite, and our minds not so much. When we're sure enough to accept the fact or take the action, that's the upper limit, because there's no reason to gather or integrate more information at that point.

I agree.
On the other hand, so is scientific knowledge.
Specific cases from which a possible law is induced.
But it is on those specific cases, as numerous as one wants but in any case specific, that knowledge is based. Not on an absolute law.

I think existence is possible precisely because there is no absolute law.
Sufficient knowledge can become insufficient at any time.

[Advocate]

>I agree.
On the other hand, so is scientific knowledge.
Specific cases from which a possible law is induced.
But it is on those specific cases, as numerous as one wants but in any case specific, that knowledge is based. Not on an absolute law.

It's an absolute law that if you're more sure of one thing than any other thing, that's sufficient for any use case when the time comes that a decision is wanted. Whether it's salient to gather more information is a separate question.

The sufficiency of knowledge is locked in at the moment of use. It must be expected to be sufficient, as a prerequisite to taking the action or accepting the fact, and either was actually sufficient or not immediately thereafter.

[Peter Holmes]

>Here are some philosophical dichotomies.

>Complete, ultimate knowledge / sufficient knowledge
>Infinite information / finite information (or a finite capacity to process information)
>Absolute truth / contingent, contextual truth

Dichotomy - a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different.

Each instance here includes b) as far along the scale as it's currently possible to go, a) further along the scale than that. Being both at the same extreme end of the same scale, those are almost as little "opposed or entirely different" as it's possible to be. That there is opposition of some kind does not make the term dichotomy appropriate.

But there really is no opposition. B is real, obvious, and absolute. A is hypothetical, speculative, ineffable. It's a category mistake to compare the materially limiting Real with the hypothetical extension of possible.

We seem to agree. Since there's no opposition or scale from one pole to the other, there's no reason to say 'justified and sufficient, not true'.

[Iwannaplato]

We seem to agree. Since there's no opposition or scale from one pole to the other, there's no reason to say 'justified and sufficient, not true'.

At any given moment and, hm, culture. I say culture, though this is not really correct. What I mean is, perhaps the Japanese have found thatX is not the case, via their own experiments, but this information has not reached Euroamerican scientists yet. So, their conclusion that X is the case is both justified and sufficient within their associational realm (another poor suggestion for the idea I first tried to capture with culture).

Language can be tricky here. When we say sufficient and justified, we are talking about our conclusions about what is the case, that the arguments/evidence have these qualities. Someone saying this before the Japanese evidence comes in (and here I am assuming it is damning) that the conclusion X is justified and sufficient, it turns out later, wasn't that, but they can't know that yet. It can have been a very responsible assessment, though it later turned out to be incorrect.

So, yes, there is no case where one would SAY justified and sufficient, not true. But it might turn out that it was justified and only seemed sufficiently, and was in fact not true.

So, while I don't see a USEFUL dichtomy complete, ultimate knowledge / sufficient knowledge, there are different levels of completeness and we may our judgment of suffienct is generally contingent and tentative (ideally)

[Peter Holmes]

We seem to agree. Since there's no opposition or scale from one pole to the other, there's no reason to say 'justified and sufficient, not true'.

At any given moment and, hm, culture. I say culture, though this is not really correct. What I mean is, perhaps the Japanese have found thatX is not the case, via their own experiments, but this information has not reached Euroamerican scientists yet. So, their conclusion that X is the case is both justified and sufficient within their associational realm (another poor suggestion for the idea I first tried to capture with culture).

Language can be tricky here. When we say sufficient and justified, we are talking about our conclusions about what is the case, that the arguments/evidence have these qualities. Someone saying this before the Japanese evidence comes in (and here I am assuming it is damning) that the conclusion X is justified and sufficient, it turns out later, wasn't that, but they can't know that yet. It can have been a very responsible assessment, though it later turned out to be incorrect.

So, yes, there is no case where one would SAY justified and sufficient, not true. But it might turn out that it was justified and only seemed sufficiently, and was in fact not true.

So, while I don't see a USEFUL dichtomy complete, ultimate knowledge / sufficient knowledge, there are different levels of completeness and we may our judgment of suffienct is generally contingent and tentative (ideally)

Okay. Couple of thoughts.

For me, the difference is between recognising (rationally) that what we think we know is the case may not be the case, and saying we can never know what actually is the case - never have complete knowledge - as though complete knowledge is a thing that could exist but happens not to. And, pari passu, for what we call truth.

What we call completeness, absoluteness, perfection, and so on - referring to knowledge and truth - aren't things that exist somehow outside any descriptive context - so that they're tantalisingly unreachable goals measured against which our attempts are doomed to be incomplete, relative or contingent, and so on.That's the ghostly dichotomy I'm referring to.

[Iwannaplato]

Okay. Couple of thoughts.

For me, the difference is between recognising (rationally) that what we think we know is the case may not be the case, and saying we can never know what actually is the case - never have complete knowledge - as though complete knowledge is a thing that could exist but happens not to. And, pari passu, for what we call truth.

I am pretty sure I agree about the difference and that complete knowledge is not an option - if I am reading you correctly.

What we call completeness, absoluteness, perfection, and so on - referring to knowledge and truth - aren't things that exist somehow outside any descriptive context - so that they're tantalisingly unreachable goals measured against which our attempts are doomed to be incomplete, relative or contingent, and so on.That's the ghostly dichotomy I'm referring to.

OK, can we have more complete? (I almost feel like apologizing for the question, but it is very easy to talk past others at high levels of abstraction)

[bobmax]

It's an absolute law that if you're more sure of one thing than any other thing, that's sufficient for any use case when the time comes that a decision is wanted.

This law is our natural life situation.
Where we are never really absolutely certain, yet we have to decide.

Therefore there is always a risk involved in every choice we make.

However, isn't it precisely the growing awareness of this risk that we take that questions us about ourselves?

[Peter Holmes]

Okay. Couple of thoughts.

For me, the difference is between recognising (rationally) that what we think we know is the case may not be the case, and saying we can never know what actually is the case - never have complete knowledge - as though complete knowledge is a thing that could exist but happens not to. And, pari passu, for what we call truth.

I am pretty sure I agree about the difference and that complete knowledge is not an option - if I am reading you correctly.

What we call completeness, absoluteness, perfection, and so on - referring to knowledge and truth - aren't things that exist somehow outside any descriptive context - so that they're tantalisingly unreachable goals measured against which our attempts are doomed to be incomplete, relative or contingent, and so on.That's the ghostly dichotomy I'm referring to.

OK, can we have more complete? (I almost feel like apologizing for the question, but it is very easy to talk past others at high levels of abstraction)

Within a descriptive context, talk of more or less completeness - of incompleteness - can make sense. And 'the whole truth' or 'the complete truth' are expressions that, in context, seem uncontraversial or unproblematic, as does 'slightly less than perfect'.

But I'd say that isn't so obviously the case for absoluteness. But maybe I'm wrong.

As always, this is about the use of words - not the existence of things.