Veritas Aequitas wrote:
If you do not want to use that name [ JTB ] for the rose do you disagree with the concept and
real thinking mental processes I had described and named as belief and justified true belief ?
Since I do not do belief of any kind then I cannot accept the Gettier definition of knowledge
My own definition would therefore be not justified true belief but justified objective truth
Because of the problem of induction not everything thought to be knowledge actually is
So I therefore think a better more accurate definition would be justified probable truth
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
If you do not want to use that name [ JTB ] for the rose do you disagree with the concept and
real thinking mental processes I had described and named as belief and justified true belief ?
Since I do not do belief of any kind then I cannot accept the Gettier definition of knowledge
My own definition would therefore be not justified true belief but justified objective truth
Because of the problem of induction not everything thought to be knowledge actually is
So I therefore think a better more accurate definition would be justified probable truth
Note we are not chasing after absolute knowledge.
JTB comes in degrees [confidence level*] depending on the reliability of the Framework and System used.
* Note your confidence level re that of religious doctrines [JTB] versus Scientific knowledge [JTB]. Surely a priest or pastor will insist the doctrine he preached is JTB based on God's existence.
Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 02, 2018 3:06 am
Wow look at this; a thread dedicated to me. i am honored. Already four pages long, but i still have not received an invite the party.
You really believe this is about you? Or that you should get an invite?