I'm sure we would all agree on that here.
EB
A default position is provisional not absolute. Therefore John did not know that all swans were white only that there was no evidenceSpeakpigeon wrote:
suppose no one has ever reported any black swan only white ones. Suppose nobody has ever seen them but there are actually a few black swans Suppose also that John is a respected zoologist. Now according to your conception of knowledge it is true that John knows all swans are white
Suppose now that John learns that some black swans have been observed. He goes there with other zoologists and see the black swans for him
self. So according to your theory now it is true that John never knew there were only white swans since there were some black swans
So your theory is that at some point it was true that John knew that there were only white swans and also that it is true now that John
never knew there were only white swans
What you are attempting to describe is Bayesian inference 101. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inferenceSpeakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 12:51 pm OK, so suppose no one has ever reported any black swan, only white ones.
Suppose nobody has ever seen them, but there are actually a few black swans.
Suppose also that John is a respected zoologist.
Now, according to your conception of knowledge, it is true that John knows all swans are white.
Suppose now that John learns that some black swans have been observed. He goes there with other zoologists and see the black swans for himself.
So, according to your theory, now it is true that John never knew there were only white swans since there were some black swans.
So, your theory is that at some point it was true that John knew that there were only white swans and also that it is true now that John never knew there were only white swans.
EB
OK, so it seems all we can do is claim to know rather than know.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 6:03 amA default position is provisional not absolute. Therefore John did not know that all swans were white only that there was no evidenceSpeakpigeon wrote:
suppose no one has ever reported any black swan only white ones. Suppose nobody has ever seen them but there are actually a few black swans Suppose also that John is a respected zoologist. Now according to your conception of knowledge it is true that John knows all swans are white
Suppose now that John learns that some black swans have been observed. He goes there with other zoologists and see the black swans for him
self. So according to your theory now it is true that John never knew there were only white swans since there were some black swans
So your theory is that at some point it was true that John knew that there were only white swans and also that it is true now that John
never knew there were only white swans
for black ones. When he sees one he then knows that not all swans are white because the existence of a black one has falsified the
default position. The position now is that not all swans are white and it will remain so until there are no black swans
WHY have or hold a VIEW/hypotheses, in the beginning, of 'that' what you have NOT yet even/ever SEEN?Logik wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 6:52 amWhat you are attempting to describe is Bayesian inference 101. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inferenceSpeakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 12:51 pm OK, so suppose no one has ever reported any black swan, only white ones.
Suppose nobody has ever seen them, but there are actually a few black swans.
Suppose also that John is a respected zoologist.
Now, according to your conception of knowledge, it is true that John knows all swans are white.
Suppose now that John learns that some black swans have been observed. He goes there with other zoologists and see the black swans for himself.
So, according to your theory, now it is true that John never knew there were only white swans since there were some black swans.
So, your theory is that at some point it was true that John knew that there were only white swans and also that it is true now that John never knew there were only white swans.
EB
The concept of prior and posterior probabilities refers to beliefs before and after evidence.
John holds two hypotheses in his mind:
A: All swans are white.
B: Not all swans are white
John's prior is 99.9999% for A, which is the same as 99.9999% AGAINST B.
For every white swan observed the odds keep shifting ever so slightly towards A, but the hypothesis never gets to 100%.
The only way to 100% certainty is falsification!
After John had observed a black swan his posterior was updated to 100% in support of B and 100% AGAINST A.
But 'we' can do differently.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 12:55 pmOK, so it seems all we can do is claim to know rather than know.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 6:03 amA default position is provisional not absolute. Therefore John did not know that all swans were white only that there was no evidenceSpeakpigeon wrote:
suppose no one has ever reported any black swan only white ones. Suppose nobody has ever seen them but there are actually a few black swans Suppose also that John is a respected zoologist. Now according to your conception of knowledge it is true that John knows all swans are white
Suppose now that John learns that some black swans have been observed. He goes there with other zoologists and see the black swans for him
self. So according to your theory now it is true that John never knew there were only white swans since there were some black swans
So your theory is that at some point it was true that John knew that there were only white swans and also that it is true now that John
never knew there were only white swans
for black ones. When he sees one he then knows that not all swans are white because the existence of a black one has falsified the
default position. The position now is that not all swans are white and it will remain so until there are no black swans
'You' and "others" may just believe things, like that, but I do NOT. I neither disbelieve any thing also.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 12:55 pmSo, we don't know that we know. We just believe that we know.
'You' and "others" might do that, but I do NOT and certainly would NEVER do such a thing.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 12:55 pmWe claim to know just in case we might not be proved wrong.
'You' and "others" could do that, but what is caused by the distorting capabilities from thee Truth of doing such a thing can be observed and SEEN by what "world" human beings are living in now, when this is written. 'BELIEFS', themselves, are the very cause of the WRONG in the world right now, and in the past, from when this is written.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 12:55 pmWe could say instead that we believe and we would never have to correct ourselves, only to change our belief.
EB
THINKING
KNOWINGsurreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 2:59 pmAbsolute knowledge : deduction / falsification / a priori
Because you recognize the incompleteness of your own knowledge?
Back to my original and continually asked question: Why NOT just LOOK AT what IS instead?
Because I have limited time to look EVERYWHERE?
Because you didn't look everywhere.
My bullshit detector is firing!!!!Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:16 am There is only incompleteness of "your own" knowledge because you are making ASSUMPTIONS of things that may or may NOT be true, right, and correct, and because you are BELIEVING in things, which may or may NOT be true, right, and correct, also.
Again, WHY make any thing that NEEDS to be tested, especially when the actual and Real Truth of things is literally STARING you in the face?
Thee Truth is HERE for ALL to SEE, so Why NOT just LOOK AT It?
If 'you', human beings, have NOT yet SEEN the Truth, and can NOT yet see It, then I have on enough occasions now explained WHY NOT.
But you have enough time to guess, make ASSUMPTIONS, conceptualize, make up models, et cetera, and BELIEVE things instead, right?
Have you YET SEEN one? If not, then answer this question Honestly and Openly what IS thee actual and Real Truth in regards to unicorns?
But if you are LOOKING AT what IS, then you do NOT have to LOOK "everywhere". (But just to add some confusion to this, and unfortunately sound like "dontaskme", you are actually LOOKING 'everywhere').
So what?Logik wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:25 amMy bullshit detector is firing!!!!Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:16 am There is only incompleteness of "your own" knowledge because you are making ASSUMPTIONS of things that may or may NOT be true, right, and correct, and because you are BELIEVING in things, which may or may NOT be true, right, and correct, also.
Again, WHY make any thing that NEEDS to be tested, especially when the actual and Real Truth of things is literally STARING you in the face?
Thee Truth is HERE for ALL to SEE, so Why NOT just LOOK AT It?
If 'you', human beings, have NOT yet SEEN the Truth, and can NOT yet see It, then I have on enough occasions now explained WHY NOT.
No, we don't. We have finite time in which to make decisions and take action.
No, it doesn't. We've been looking for a cure for cancer for a long time. We haven't found it yet.
That we do not know whether they exist or not. Maybe they do - maybe they don't.
The same goes with curing cancer.
OK then show us. Since you know how to look and where to look then surely you must have looked there.
I asked YOU the question. YOU are incapable of answering questions for ALL of US.
YOU answer as if you KNOW what you are talking about.
So what? WHAT has a cure for cancer got to do with thee Truth of things?
Did you NOTICE how SIMPLE that was?
Who cares?
WE WERE talking about LOOKING AT and SEEING thee Truth of things. We WERE NOT talking about the "right" answer, to such questions. Did you forget?
WHY would you now, once again, go and ASSUME some thing?
I do NOT know.
You can THINK whatever you LIKE. The Truth speaks for Itself. The Truth, however, will NEVER rely only on what 'you' THINK.
That is a lie. I am perfectly capable answering the question for ALL OF US.
To determine IF unicorns exist.
I am on-topic. What you are doing in the paragraph above IS a diversion.
Correct. I know your life-span is finite.
Because "We can cure cancer" is either or a True of a False statement.
I am not TRYING to speak for you. I am SPEAKING for you. Because you are unable to.
"WE" are YOU speaking on my behalf now?
Yet here you are - speaking on behalf of Truth.