Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

[Age]

We can build a 100% reliable model of the world by stating all of the things that are
necessarily true as axioms. {cats are animals} and thus not {ten story office buildings}
are certainly true statements. The first one becomes an axiom. The second one is
deduced on the basis of the set of properties assigned to cats and office buildings.
When we say such things as {Pluto is a planet} we must say them in a way that allows
for future revision. When we says that {cats are animals} we need not be concerned
that someone will later on point out that {cats were always ten story office buildings}.

Long story short a correct model of the world is the axiomatic basis of knowledge that
defines the meaning of terms.

That's just a model of language, not a model of the world. To know that it is a model of the world would mean we would have to use empirical knowledge. Cats is a meaningless term with empirical knowledge and so is animals.

So, yes, we could go around saying correct sentences, but we would have no way of knowing if they apply to the world. Not just is small ways: like we find out that one of the animals we have been including in the category 'cats' is actually a different kind of animal. But in all ways.

It's also a denial that our words came out of empirical processes. So we have taken empirical processes, come up with words, like cats - then we list attributes of cats we have found, empirically, and use these to determine if something is a cat. Fruit of the poison tree.

Sure we can have a dictionary, but without empirical knowledge it would be filled with made up words and definitions and categories.

Gnupt is a type of girdle frak, distinguished from others by being able to do math and has wings.
Or
Kleeb are animals.

But then we find out that Kleep are actually alien toy holograms.

Whatever we call knowledge unless it is something like math with no referents, just rules and symbols, if fallible.

And analytic truths don't make it to a model unless we just consider it a random model. Because the moment we say model A is more correct than model b
we
had
to
check
empirically

and then
we
made
the
model
building
from
empirical experience (pardon the redundancy)

I have a model dogs are a type of stone.

So then maybe you too believe that it is possible that {cats are animals} is false and that we have been fooled
and that the actual truth is that {cats have always been ten story office buildings}

'you' say here "peteolcott", 'you' too', so WHO is this OTHER one who, supposedly, BELIEVES that it is POSSIBLE that 'cats are animals' is false and that we have been fooled and that the actual truth is that 'cats have always been ten story office buildings'?

A model of the world is an abstract representation of things in the world using language.
{cats are animals} is one axiom of the model of the world.

AND 'the sun revolves around the earth' was just ANOTHER 'axiom', of 'the model of the world', to 'those' WHO BELIEVE/D 'that axiom'.

Just like, in the days when this is being written, some BELIEVE that 'the earth is flat', is an 'axiom', and a 'true', or 'truer', 'model of the world'.

Some, also, BELIEVE that 'earth is a planet', is an 'axiom', and 'a model of the world', just like some BELIEVE that 'pluto is a planet', is an 'axiom', and 'model of the world'. Just like some BELIEVE that 'pluto' AND 'earth' may or may NOT be 'a planet' AT ALL.

SOME are JUST MORE OPEN than "others", while SOME are JUST MORE CLOSED than "others".

[PeteOlcott]

In the context of my reply, this makes no sense. JTB is not the current received view. And while it is true that many beliefs are little more than emotionally freighted and unreliable opinions, justified beliefs and true beliefs are considerably more than that.

Knowledge is the set of expressions of language that we are aware of as true.
I have huge reservations about this.

I don't think knowledge is confined to language expressions, nor even to that which might be expressed. (If I am out and the weather turns nasty, I know that the weather has turned nasty before any formal propositions come into my head.)

But more problematic is the implicit distinction it makes between that which we believe and that which we are aware of as true. I can see nothing that distinguishes the two, except the priviledged access to imagined truth that you and I enjoy as hypothesising philosophers.

I cut out beliefs completely and replaced it with awareness of truth.

But HOW, EXACTLY, do you DISTINGUISH BETWEEN the 'awareness of' truth' FROM the 'awareness of untruth'?

We cannot count true statement that we don't know about as our own knowledge.

The key aspect of this is the axiomatic model of the world.
This is the only think that give otherwise totally meaningless finite strings their meaning.
It is the only way that we know that {baby kittens} are {animals} and not {ten story office buildings}.

[PeteOlcott]

OBVIOUSLY 'you' MISSED the POINT here, COMPLETELY.

We can build a 100% reliable model of the world by stating all of the things that are
necessarily true as axioms. {cats are animals} and thus not {ten story office buildings}
are certainly true statements.

To WHO and/or WHAT, EXACTLY are 'those statements', supposedly, 'certainly true statements'?

ANSWER 'this CLARIFYING QUESTION, then you WILL BE one step closer to working out and KNOWING how to, absolutely, DISTINGUISH within ALL statements what IS 'ACTUAL IRREFUTABLY True' FROM what is NOT. Then, and ONLY THEN, one does NOT 'need' 'models of the world', as they WILL HAVE the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things' anyway.

The first one becomes an axiom. The second one is
deduced on the basis of the set of properties assigned to cats and office buildings.
When we say such things as {Pluto is a planet} we must say them in a way that allows
for future revision.

But WHY do you NOT have to MUST SAY 'cats are mammals' in a way that allows future revision?

When we says that {cats are animals} we need not be concerned
that someone will later on point out that {cats were always ten story office buildings}.

NO, 'you' do NOT.

BUT, later on, someone, later on, might point out that ACTUALLY 'cats are NOT animals and/or NOT mammals, after all'.

Of, do 'you' BELIEVE that 'this' is an ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBILITY?

If yes, then WHY can 'pluto NOT become a planet' BUT 'cats HAVE TO, FOREVER MORE, remain animals'?

Also, when 'you' say, 'earth is a planet', then MUST 'you' 'that' in a way that allows for future revision?

If yes, then WHY?

But if no, then WHY NOT?

Long story short a correct model of the world is the axiomatic basis of knowledge that
defines the meaning of terms.

Are 'we' allowed to 'say', 'a correct model of the world is the axiomatic basis of knowledge that defines the meaning of terms' 'it' in a way that allows for future revision? Or, MUST we say 'that' in a way that does NOT allow for future revision?

If it is the former, then I suggest 'we' REVISE 'it' NOW.

Some of the elements of the model of the world are stated tentatively, {baby kittens}
are not {ten story office buildings} is not one of those.

[PeteOlcott]

We can build a 100% reliable model of the world by stating all of the things that are
necessarily true as axioms. {cats are animals} and thus not {ten story office buildings}
are certainly true statements. The first one becomes an axiom. The second one is
deduced on the basis of the set of properties assigned to cats and office buildings.
When we say such things as {Pluto is a planet} we must say them in a way that allows
for future revision. When we says that {cats are animals} we need not be concerned
that someone will later on point out that {cats were always ten story office buildings}.

Long story short a correct model of the world is the axiomatic basis of knowledge that
defines the meaning of terms.

That's just a model of language, not a model of the world. To know that it is a model of the world would mean we would have to use empirical knowledge. Cats is a meaningless term with empirical knowledge and so is animals.

So, yes, we could go around saying correct sentences, but we would have no way of knowing if they apply to the world. Not just is small ways: like we find out that one of the animals we have been including in the category 'cats' is actually a different kind of animal. But in all ways.

It's also a denial that our words came out of empirical processes. So we have taken empirical processes, come up with words, like cats - then we list attributes of cats we have found, empirically, and use these to determine if something is a cat. Fruit of the poison tree.

Sure we can have a dictionary, but without empirical knowledge it would be filled with made up words and definitions and categories.

But a dictionary is, literally, FULL of made up words, definitions, and categories.

Gnupt is a type of girdle frak, distinguished from others by being able to do math and has wings.
Or
Kleeb are animals.

But then we find out that Kleep are actually alien toy holograms.

Whatever we call knowledge unless it is something like math with no referents, just rules and symbols, if fallible.

And analytic truths don't make it to a model unless we just consider it a random model. Because the moment we say model A is more correct than model b
we
had
to
check
empirically

and then
we
made
the
model
building
from
empirical experience (pardon the redundancy)

I have a model dogs are a type of stone.

'Models', 'thesis', 'assumptions', 'guesses', 'beliefs', et cetera are pretty well absolutely WORTHLESS in regards to what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True. 'They' are also absolutely USELESS REALLY when one can just LOOK AT and KNOW what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True ONLY, INSTEAD.

The model of the world must enable an AI mind to accomplish anything that a human mind can accomplish.
If we restrict this to immutable truth then it would not know that going into a tiger cage can be risky.
We have to state the fact that going into a tiger cage can be risky, yet the term {risky} provides no precise measure.

[Skepdick]

The model of the world must enable an AI mind to accomplish anything that a human mind can accomplish.
If we restrict this to immutable truth then it would not know that going into a tiger cage can be risky.
We have to state the fact that going into a tiger cage can be risky, yet the term {risky} provides no precise measure.

So you gotta teach the AI how to lie. The same way humans do.

[Age]

I cut out beliefs completely and replaced it with awareness of truth.

But HOW, EXACTLY, do you DISTINGUISH BETWEEN the 'awareness of' truth' FROM the 'awareness of untruth'?

We cannot count true statement that we don't know about as our own knowledge.

The key aspect of this is the axiomatic model of the world.

What you are NOT FULLY COMPREHENDING and UNDERSTANDING here is that what IS and what IS NOT so-called 'axiomatic' IS RELATIVE to the observer.

Or you are just REFUSING to acknowledge and/or just accept this Fact.

This is the only think that give otherwise totally meaningless finite strings their meaning.

If you think or BELIEF that 'this' is the ONLY 'thing' that can give 'things' their meaning/s, then you are just DELUDING "your" OWN 'self' here.

It is the only way that we know that {baby kittens} are {animals} and not {ten story office buildings}.

So, to you, by just BELIEVING some 'thing' is true is the ONLY way that you can KNOW 'things', well 'that' and just calling 'it' 'an axiom' will suffice, right?

[Age]

We can build a 100% reliable model of the world by stating all of the things that are
necessarily true as axioms. {cats are animals} and thus not {ten story office buildings}
are certainly true statements.

To WHO and/or WHAT, EXACTLY are 'those statements', supposedly, 'certainly true statements'?

ANSWER 'this CLARIFYING QUESTION, then you WILL BE one step closer to working out and KNOWING how to, absolutely, DISTINGUISH within ALL statements what IS 'ACTUAL IRREFUTABLY True' FROM what is NOT. Then, and ONLY THEN, one does NOT 'need' 'models of the world', as they WILL HAVE the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things' anyway.

The first one becomes an axiom. The second one is
deduced on the basis of the set of properties assigned to cats and office buildings.
When we say such things as {Pluto is a planet} we must say them in a way that allows
for future revision.

But WHY do you NOT have to MUST SAY 'cats are mammals' in a way that allows future revision?

When we says that {cats are animals} we need not be concerned
that someone will later on point out that {cats were always ten story office buildings}.

NO, 'you' do NOT.

BUT, later on, someone, later on, might point out that ACTUALLY 'cats are NOT animals and/or NOT mammals, after all'.

Of, do 'you' BELIEVE that 'this' is an ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBILITY?

If yes, then WHY can 'pluto NOT become a planet' BUT 'cats HAVE TO, FOREVER MORE, remain animals'?

Also, when 'you' say, 'earth is a planet', then MUST 'you' 'that' in a way that allows for future revision?

If yes, then WHY?

But if no, then WHY NOT?

Long story short a correct model of the world is the axiomatic basis of knowledge that
defines the meaning of terms.

Are 'we' allowed to 'say', 'a correct model of the world is the axiomatic basis of knowledge that defines the meaning of terms' 'it' in a way that allows for future revision? Or, MUST we say 'that' in a way that does NOT allow for future revision?

If it is the former, then I suggest 'we' REVISE 'it' NOW.

Some of the elements of the model of the world are stated tentatively, {baby kittens}
are not {ten story office buildings} is not one of those.

What are you on about here?

WHY do you NOT just ANSWER the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS I pose, and ASK to you?

[Age]

That's just a model of language, not a model of the world. To know that it is a model of the world would mean we would have to use empirical knowledge. Cats is a meaningless term with empirical knowledge and so is animals.

So, yes, we could go around saying correct sentences, but we would have no way of knowing if they apply to the world. Not just is small ways: like we find out that one of the animals we have been including in the category 'cats' is actually a different kind of animal. But in all ways.

It's also a denial that our words came out of empirical processes. So we have taken empirical processes, come up with words, like cats - then we list attributes of cats we have found, empirically, and use these to determine if something is a cat. Fruit of the poison tree.

Sure we can have a dictionary, but without empirical knowledge it would be filled with made up words and definitions and categories.

But a dictionary is, literally, FULL of made up words, definitions, and categories.

Gnupt is a type of girdle frak, distinguished from others by being able to do math and has wings.
Or
Kleeb are animals.

But then we find out that Kleep are actually alien toy holograms.

Whatever we call knowledge unless it is something like math with no referents, just rules and symbols, if fallible.

And analytic truths don't make it to a model unless we just consider it a random model. Because the moment we say model A is more correct than model b
we
had
to
check
empirically

and then
we
made
the
model
building
from
empirical experience (pardon the redundancy)

I have a model dogs are a type of stone.

'Models', 'thesis', 'assumptions', 'guesses', 'beliefs', et cetera are pretty well absolutely WORTHLESS in regards to what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True. 'They' are also absolutely USELESS REALLY when one can just LOOK AT and KNOW what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True ONLY, INSTEAD.

The model of the world must enable an AI mind to accomplish anything that a human mind can accomplish.

Well considering the IRREFUTABLE Fact that there is NO ACTUAL human mind, creating some 'thing', which can accomplish what some IMAGINED 'thing' is IMAGINED to accomplish, might be somewhat IMPOSSIBLE, or even UNIMAGINABLE, to some.

If we restrict this to immutable truth then it would not know that going into a tiger cage can be risky.
We have to state the fact that going into a tiger cage can be risky, yet the term {risky} provides no precise measure.

ONCE AGAIN, absolutely EVERY thing is relative, to the observer.

[PeteOlcott]

But HOW, EXACTLY, do you DISTINGUISH BETWEEN the 'awareness of' truth' FROM the 'awareness of untruth'?

The key aspect of this is the axiomatic model of the world.

What you are NOT FULLY COMPREHENDING and UNDERSTANDING here is that what IS and what IS NOT so-called 'axiomatic' IS RELATIVE to the observer.

Or you are just REFUSING to acknowledge and/or just accept this Fact.

This is the only think that give otherwise totally meaningless finite strings their meaning.

If you think or BELIEF that 'this' is the ONLY 'thing' that can give 'things' their meaning/s, then you are just DELUDING "your" OWN 'self' here.

It is the only way that we know that {baby kittens} are {animals} and not {ten story office buildings}.

So, to you, by just BELIEVING some 'thing' is true is the ONLY way that you can KNOW 'things', well 'that' and just calling 'it' 'an axiom' will suffice, right?

If everything is relative to the observer then someone holding the opinion that 2 + 3 = {a plate of burned brownies trampled on the floor} would be equally correct with someone that understood that 2 + 3 = 5. In other words the term {psychotic break from reality} can't possibly have any meaning because all opinions carry equal weight and there would be no such thing as verified facts.

[Age]

The key aspect of this is the axiomatic model of the world.

What you are NOT FULLY COMPREHENDING and UNDERSTANDING here is that what IS and what IS NOT so-called 'axiomatic' IS RELATIVE to the observer.

Or you are just REFUSING to acknowledge and/or just accept this Fact.

This is the only think that give otherwise totally meaningless finite strings their meaning.

If you think or BELIEF that 'this' is the ONLY 'thing' that can give 'things' their meaning/s, then you are just DELUDING "your" OWN 'self' here.

It is the only way that we know that {baby kittens} are {animals} and not {ten story office buildings}.

So, to you, by just BELIEVING some 'thing' is true is the ONLY way that you can KNOW 'things', well 'that' and just calling 'it' 'an axiom' will suffice, right?

If everything is relative to the observer then someone holding the opinion that 2 + 3 = {a plate of burned brownies trampled on the floor} would be equally correct with someone that understood that 2 + 3 = 5.

NO it does NOT. But, then again, NOT EVERY 'thing' is relative to the observer, correct?


If yes, then will you list some or all of the 'things' that are NOT relative to the observer?

In other words the term {psychotic break from reality} can't possibly have any meaning because all opinions carry equal weight and there would be no such thing as verified facts.

But NOT ALL opinions carry equal weight. And this is BECAUSE EVERY 'thing' is relative to the observer.

[PeteOlcott]

What you are NOT FULLY COMPREHENDING and UNDERSTANDING here is that what IS and what IS NOT so-called 'axiomatic' IS RELATIVE to the observer.

Or you are just REFUSING to acknowledge and/or just accept this Fact.



If you think or BELIEF that 'this' is the ONLY 'thing' that can give 'things' their meaning/s, then you are just DELUDING "your" OWN 'self' here.



So, to you, by just BELIEVING some 'thing' is true is the ONLY way that you can KNOW 'things', well 'that' and just calling 'it' 'an axiom' will suffice, right?

If everything is relative to the observer then someone holding the opinion that 2 + 3 = {a plate of burned brownies trampled on the floor} would be equally correct with someone that understood that 2 + 3 = 5.

NO it does NOT. But, then again, NOT EVERY 'thing' is relative to the observer, correct?


If yes, then will you list some or all of the 'things' that are NOT relative to the observer?

In other words the term {psychotic break from reality} can't possibly have any meaning because all opinions carry equal weight and there would be no such thing as verified facts.

But NOT ALL opinions carry equal weight. And this is BECAUSE EVERY 'thing' is relative to the observer.

I have been fighting this ridiculous perspective since I was 14 years old, 54 years ago. If everything is relative to the observer then wrong-headed opinions carry equal weight to verified facts and humanity perishes because they believe the climate change disinformation produced by the fossil fuel industry.

Tautologies are not relative to any observer and the ratio of the diameter to the circumference of a circle was logically entailed by the concept of round long before the first humans could count to five yet could look up into the sky and see a full Moon.

[Age]

If everything is relative to the observer then someone holding the opinion that 2 + 3 = {a plate of burned brownies trampled on the floor} would be equally correct with someone that understood that 2 + 3 = 5.

NO it does NOT. But, then again, NOT EVERY 'thing' is relative to the observer, correct?


If yes, then will you list some or all of the 'things' that are NOT relative to the observer?

In other words the term {psychotic break from reality} can't possibly have any meaning because all opinions carry equal weight and there would be no such thing as verified facts.

But NOT ALL opinions carry equal weight. And this is BECAUSE EVERY 'thing' is relative to the observer.

I have been fighting this ridiculous perspective since I was 14 years old, 54 years ago. If everything is relative to the observer then wrong-headed opinions carry equal weight to verified facts and humanity perishes because they believe the climate change disinformation produced by the fossil fuel industry.

Tautologies are not relative to any observer and the ratio of the diameter to the circumference of a circle was logically entailed by the concept of round long before the first humans could count to five yet could look up into the sky and see a full Moon.

What are you on about here?

What makes a 'tautology' a 'tautology' if NOT an 'observer'?

[PeteOlcott]

NO it does NOT. But, then again, NOT EVERY 'thing' is relative to the observer, correct?


If yes, then will you list some or all of the 'things' that are NOT relative to the observer?


But NOT ALL opinions carry equal weight. And this is BECAUSE EVERY 'thing' is relative to the observer.

I have been fighting this ridiculous perspective since I was 14 years old, 54 years ago. If everything is relative to the observer then wrong-headed opinions carry equal weight to verified facts and humanity perishes because they believe the climate change disinformation produced by the fossil fuel industry.

Tautologies are not relative to any observer and the ratio of the diameter to the circumference of a circle was logically entailed by the concept of round long before the first humans could count to five yet could look up into the sky and see a full Moon.

What are you on about here?

What makes a 'tautology' a 'tautology' if NOT an 'observer'?

What makes the {integer five} a {number} and not a {plate of burned brownies trampled on the floor}?
Have people always been deceived and counting really goes like this 1,2,3,4, crushed brownies?
Tautologies are mental constructs encoded in language that have the semantic property of Boolean true.

[Age]

I have been fighting this ridiculous perspective since I was 14 years old, 54 years ago. If everything is relative to the observer then wrong-headed opinions carry equal weight to verified facts and humanity perishes because they believe the climate change disinformation produced by the fossil fuel industry.

Tautologies are not relative to any observer and the ratio of the diameter to the circumference of a circle was logically entailed by the concept of round long before the first humans could count to five yet could look up into the sky and see a full Moon.

What are you on about here?

What makes a 'tautology' a 'tautology' if NOT an 'observer'?

What makes the {integer five} a {number} and not a {plate of burned brownies trampled on the floor}?

The EXACT SAME 'thing' that I have been TRYING TO GET 'you' TO ANSWER.

Have people always been deceived and counting really goes like this 1,2,3,4, crushed brownies?

WHY do 'you' END UP PRESUMING and SAYING the MOST ILLOGICAL and OFF TOPIC COMMENTS in regards to what 'I' or "others" ACTUALLY SAY and MEAN?

Tautologies are mental constructs encoded in language that have the semantic property of Boolean true.

Do 'tautologies' exist WITHIN human beings AS WELL, or just WITHIN computers and/or computing ALONE?

Also, IS 'climate change' 'boolean true' OR 'boolean false'?

[PeteOlcott]

What are you on about here?

What makes a 'tautology' a 'tautology' if NOT an 'observer'?

What makes the {integer five} a {number} and not a {plate of burned brownies trampled on the floor}?

The EXACT SAME 'thing' that I have been TRYING TO GET 'you' TO ANSWER.

Have people always been deceived and counting really goes like this 1,2,3,4, crushed brownies?

WHY do 'you' END UP PRESUMING and SAYING the MOST ILLOGICAL and OFF TOPIC COMMENTS in regards to what 'I' or "others" ACTUALLY SAY and MEAN?

Tautologies are mental constructs encoded in language that have the semantic property of Boolean true.

Do 'tautologies' exist WITHIN human beings AS WELL, or just WITHIN computers and/or computing ALONE?

Also, IS 'climate change' 'boolean true' OR 'boolean false'?

This is how and why some expressions of language are tautologies
Only by stipulating relations between finite strings do finite strings acquire semantic meaning otherwise they remain meaningless. All of these stipulated relations are stipulated to have the semantic property of Boolean true.

Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable facts
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... able_facts