surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:58 am
What about knowledge arrived at through falsification ?
For is it not essentially the same as absolute knowledge ?
Even falsification is contextual. Something that doesn't work in context A may work in context B.
This is known as the Ludic fallacy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludic_fallacy
The error of confusing theory with practice.
This also reminds me of a similar sentiment in military history where the French (considered masters of fencing) kept losing fencing duels to English officers. The French fenced by some set of "rules" - the English fought to win at all cost.
Or as Game of Thrones conveyed the lesson: "You do not fight with honour!"
"No, but the dead guy did."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2Yy0pkcfiA
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:58 am
One black swan is proof that not all swans are white
And it would be absolute not provisional knowledge
Well, is it? Telling me that not all swans are white doesn't tell me anything about swans.
Telling me that some swans are black and some swans are white is incomplete.
Some swans may be brown.
Some swans may be pink.
Some swans may be maroon.
All swans are NOT white is useless because some swans ARE white and some swans aren't.
This leads to another definition: I don't know what knowledge is, but I know what knowledge isn't. Knowledge isn't useless.
And telling me "all swans are NOT white" is completely and utterly useless!
You can blame it on JTB (Justified True Belief). According to JTB this is knowledge: Tomorrow I may or may not die.
If that's knowledge, I will gladly trade it for toilet paper.