Oh, I didn't realise that's what you were going for.
I thought you were speaking truth or something
Would you say you know all the reasons an airplane works when it doesn't fail?
No, they don't know. They believe they know. They are even probably certain they know.
That is tantamount to saying, "if you don't know everything, than you don't know anything," which would mean, since no one is omniscient, no one can know anything. I know that is the view of some. I hope it is not yours. The answer to your question is very simple. If you know how a thing is supposed to work and it does work, you know it worked because nothing that could prevent it from working has occurred, and you don't need to know what those things are that could prevent it from working.
I know some things but there are things I don't know. I know my computer seems to working properly but maybe it isn't. I sure know some good reasons that it should work properly but I don't know of all the myriad of reasons that it would not.
Except you don't know it's working properly. You may think it is working properly. You may even be certain. Yet, you don't know.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2019 2:07 amThe answer to your question is very simple. If you know how a thing is supposed to work and it does work, you know it worked because nothing that could prevent it from working has occurred, and you don't need to know what those things are that could prevent it from working.
This is a retrospective view on things. Look at all your verbs - they are past tense.
This is a prospective view on things. Your verbs are in present-continuous tense.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2019 2:07 amIf you are familiar with ohms law, the voltage in a DC circuit is determined by the current times the resistance (IR). If you are designing a circuit and want there to be a certain current, you design it so the voltage divided by the resistance (E/R) equals the desired current.
99% of the time your parachute works every time!
Well, it does - actually. You ought to know when/how the models you depend on for achieving your goal stops working.
Not really. "If you know (present tense) how a thing is supposed to work and it does work (present tense), you know (present tense) it worked (past tense, but 'works' would have the same meaning) because nothing that could prevent(present tense) it from working has occurred (past tense, but "exists" would mean the same thing), and you don't need to know (present tense) what those things are (present tense) that could prevent (present tense) it from working."Univalence wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2019 11:22 amLook at all your verbs - they are past tense.
I'm sorry I have no idea what you are talking about here. There is no such thing as induction, there is only observation (sometimes mistaken for induction), identification and deduction.
If Ohm's law did not hold at all temperatures, a change in current or voltage due to a change in resistance caused by a change in temperature could not occur.
That's fallaciously incomplete. I have no idea what you're talking about.
You have no idea what ANYTHING "is". What is a cat? An animal. What is an animal? An organism.What is an organism? You are perpetually asking "What is X?". The exact same problem appears when you self-reference knowledge by proposing that 'Knowledge is X'. This is the problem with all foundationalism - the 'define X' game is infinite and all language is (ultimately) circular.
Sure! When you answer the question, "what is quantum physics," without any interpretation.
I am afraid you are going to have to lead the way here. I already admitted to being unable to answer "What is X" questions in any meaningful way.
I don't know how I live. But that I do is not in doubt. I just follow my intuition a lot.
No, I know what epistemology does. I don't know what knowledge is. What you write about doesn't strike me as "epistemology".
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests