Yes, and altered states through drugs too.Belinda wrote:Terrapin Station says that there are no good reasons to believe that naive realism is wrong.
What would amount a good reason? I can think of four empirical reasons to believe that naive realism is wrong:
1. Optical illusions
2. Hallucinations
3. Mental effects of sensory deprivation
4. Hormonal or other biochemical effects upon mood, degrees of awareness activation, and source of information(external or memory).
Time does not exist.
- Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8364
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Time does not exist.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Time does not exist.
The problem with that is that you can have good reasons to believe that P despite the fact that P is false and we're aware that P is false.prothero wrote:How about “justified belief” as opposed to “justified true belief?
For example, take someone performing a magic trick--let's say sawing a lady in half. You have justification for believing that the magician is sawing a woman in half--you see the woman go into the box, where there's no apparent means for anyone else to be there or for her to move part of her body out of the box while a prop or something comes out of another part of the box. We see the saw go through. If it's a Penn & Teller show you might see blood spraying as the saw goes through. Etc. However, we're also aware that it's just an illusion and that they're not really sawing a woman in half.
So if "justified belief" is sufficient for knowledge, then we know that the woman is being sawed in half (as long as you believe that she's being sawed in half), despite being aware that it's false that she's sawed in half.
That might be the case insofar as things like theories go, and as far as they're acting in some official capacity re their jobs.Scientists generally do not talk about “truth” only philosophers. Scientists talk about theories which are compatible with currently known facts or about theories which make accurate predictions.
It's far less likely to be the case when the scientist is at home, they tell their kid to not put a plugged-in radio on a counter right near the bath so that it could fall in, lest they be electrocuted, and the kid says, "Is that really true that you can be electrocuted like that?"
Last edited by Terrapin Station on Mon Oct 03, 2016 12:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Time does not exist.
I didn't really get your comment here. But you didn't simply say how you define or characterize knowledge other than jtb.Hobbes' Choice wrote:Belief has no place in my lexicon, except to demonstrate a faith held position.Terrapin Station wrote:How do you define or characterize (propositional) knowledge if not as justified true belief?Hobbes' Choice wrote:No, no, no. I am one of those folks that reject belief as damaging. I believe nothing, but seek to know.
naive is one instance that is not relevant. Naive in this instance means lacking judgement, and being innocent of complexity.
JTB is equivalent to knowledge. All knowledge is contingent on the information which furnishes it. Belief requires no justification but faith.
I think it makes more sense to draw a line between the two ideas. In the same way I prefer why to focus not on the hows but on intentionality.
- Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8364
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Time does not exist.
I'm not sure what you think so wrong with that.Terrapin Station wrote:I didn't really get your comment here. But you didn't simply say how you define or characterize knowledge other than jtb.Hobbes' Choice wrote:Belief has no place in my lexicon, except to demonstrate a faith held position.Terrapin Station wrote:How do you define or characterize (propositional) knowledge if not as justified true belief?
JTB is equivalent to knowledge. All knowledge is contingent on the information which furnishes it. Belief requires no justification but faith.
I think it makes more sense to draw a line between the two ideas. In the same way I prefer why to focus not on the hows but on intentionality.
Do you think that JTB is anything OTHER than knowledge. If not, then why not call a spade a spade?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Time does not exist.
Hobbes, you said "I believe nothing, but seek to know." Doesn't that imply that you do not characterize knowledge as justified true belief? Otherwise, when you know something, it's the case in your view that you believe something.
- Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8364
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Time does not exist.
No it means that the phrase JTB is redundant.Terrapin Station wrote:Hobbes, you said "I believe nothing, but seek to know." Doesn't that imply that you do not characterize knowledge as justified true belief? Otherwise, when you know something, it's the case in your view that you believe something.
-
- Posts: 238
- Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: Time does not exist.
I strikes me that the only person who believes that a belief can be 100% "justified and true" is the person who has never changed their mind about something, a person who never has been surprised or proved wrong.
"In the final analysis, there is no final analysis" - unknown
"In the final analysis, there is no final analysis" - unknown
Re: Time does not exist.
Time does not exist.
That's good to know, now I don't have to worry about being on time for anything.
That's good to know, now I don't have to worry about being on time for anything.
Re: Time does not exist.
Time, gravity, the universe, nothing exists, it's all your imagination, really.
Re: Time does not exist.
I don't think that makes sense, not even in the religious sense. How could one claim one 'believed' something, while also being aware that one had no reason for doing so? You would more likely say you had 'assumed' something. And I think that is what the religious use is meant to imply; 'faith' in the sense of putting your trust in something. It does not imply certainty, quite the contrary.Belief has no place in my lexicon, except to demonstrate a faith held position.
....JTB is equivalent to knowledge. All knowledge is contingent on the information which furnishes it. Belief requires no justification but faith.
And isn't the problem with 'information', meaning something that furnishes knowledge, i.e. something that comes from outside ourselves, that we can never identify what that something is? We cannot be sure that anything in our heads comes from outside them, but we can be sure that nothing in our heads comes entirely from outside them. That knowledge, or what we call knowledge, is shaped by our existing consciousness and by what we have previously accepted as 'knowledge'.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Time does not exist.
There you go with certainty and proofs again.OuterLimits wrote:I strikes me that the only person who believes that a belief can be 100% "justified and true" is the person who has never changed their mind about something, a person who never has been surprised or proved wrong.
"In the final analysis, there is no final analysis" - unknown
Re: Time does not exist.
Hobbes'Choice wrote:
It does make sense to "draw a line between the two ideas" i.e between knowledge and faith. Those are two significantly different approaches to how to sustain one's life and the lives of others.
One objection might be that some people have faith in absurdities, absurd because as propositions they are impossible or defunct according to all current paradigms. Have you an answer to this objection, Hobbes'Choice?
is part of a good argument for a Wittgensteinian position on belief as faith. In actual fact we do say that we believe in something or other, not as a proposition, but as a statement of faith. In this fideistic sense belief is true if it makes sense for you or me in our lives and especially with regard to social relationships, or relationship to God.Belief has no place in my lexicon, except to demonstrate a faith held position.
JTB is equivalent to knowledge. All knowledge is contingent on the information which furnishes it. Belief requires no justification but faith.
I think it makes more sense to draw a line between the two ideas. In the same way I prefer why to focus not on the hows but on intentionality.
It does make sense to "draw a line between the two ideas" i.e between knowledge and faith. Those are two significantly different approaches to how to sustain one's life and the lives of others.
One objection might be that some people have faith in absurdities, absurd because as propositions they are impossible or defunct according to all current paradigms. Have you an answer to this objection, Hobbes'Choice?
-
- Posts: 238
- Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: Time does not exist.
What else but certainty or a proof justifies the labeling of belief as knowledge. This is why I don't like "knowledge".Terrapin Station wrote:There you go with certainty and proofs again.OuterLimits wrote:I strikes me that the only person who believes that a belief can be 100% "justified and true" is the person who has never changed their mind about something, a person who never has been surprised or proved wrong.
"In the final analysis, there is no final analysis" - unknown
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Time does not exist.
That you consider it justified and that you judge it to be true. Neither of those requires certainty or proof. Again, it's best to just throw out any concern with certainty or proof, pro or con. Conceptualizing epistemology in those terms is a mistake in my view.OuterLimits wrote:What else but certainty or a proof justifies the labeling of belief as knowledge.
-
- Posts: 238
- Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: Time does not exist.
Thanks for understanding.Terrapin Station wrote:That you consider it justified and that you judge it to be true. Neither of those requires certainty or proof. Again, it's best to just throw out any concern with certainty or proof, pro or con. Conceptualizing epistemology in those terms is a mistake in my view.OuterLimits wrote:What else but certainty or a proof justifies the labeling of belief as knowledge.