The reason that I focus on the analytic side is that on the empirical side the closestIwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2023 7:02 amSo, is the latter knowledge? If yes, well unfortunately it can turn out later to be false. This is an aspect of science, that knowledge can be revised when more information comes in.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2023 6:56 am
I count analytic knowledge as infallible because you can know it right now.
I count empirical knowledge as reliable as it seems to continue to prove itself to be.
As far as analytic knowledge being infallible, our interpretations are never infallible. You might think your sense of the semantics of a term are corrent but be incorrent. Someone could make a mistake related to what a bachelor means in that classic example of an analytic conclusion.
And any process of drawing a conclusion takes time.
that we can get to actual knowledge is a preliminary estimate. If our own memories
are fake then our own memories of are own mother are false.
I am not allowing room for misinterpretation, I am only including denotation.
2 + 3 = 5, (decimal integers) anyone disagreeing is simply wrong.
The 100% complete definition of every natural language term is linked to
its GUID within an inheritance hierarchy of the set of all general knowledge.
Context specific information has its own knowledge ontology.
Any expressions of language requiring interpretation are excluded from
knowledge. If someone mistakes an unmarried male for someone that
graduated from a four year college then they failed to pay attention
to the globally unique identifier (GUID) index to the term "bachelor".