Well, if you think so, spell it out. Don’t keep us in suspense.
I am not sure how when one ‘knows’ something that ‘that knowing/conviction’ could not be justified. If some says something that cannot be justified, then ‘it’ is not known to be true but is just thought/assumed/believed et cetara to be true instead.
Sounds rather convoluted and unnecessarily overcomplicated.
To me, if something is known to be true, then one must already have the proof, facts, and/or sound and valid argument that irrefutably supports it.
And, if someone does not have what can support ‘a view’ irrefutably True, then ‘that view’ is just thought to be true only.
If ‘you’ did not conflate the word ‘know’ with two different uses here, then there would be no conflation here.
Well, not to me anyway.
I am not sure if it is a ‘cult/ure’ and/or country issue, but it appears that some people from a particular country/cult/ure have ‘grown up’ accepting the word ‘belief’ differently from people in other countries or cult/ures.
Maybe if a census was taken about in which countries/cultures people who believe, absolutely, that ‘we’ human beings MUST HAVE BELIEFS and cannot live without beliefs, from people who accept that people have beliefs but they are NOT going to “die” without them, and then find out and see if there is a ‘cult/ural’ influence here, then this might help in explaining WHY there is so much confusion, tension, misunderstanding, and/or bickering within these forums.
Just something for everyone to think about and consider any way.
ALL knowledge comes from the one source and one way; that is; through any of the five senses of the body.
See, ALL knowledge fundamentally is derived from what ‘the human body’ has experienced in the past hitherto this always ‘now’.
Could all this talk about ‘what could be done or is done’ be just better exemplified if ‘we’ put ‘real world’ examples to the test?
Who cares what people could do or do do, or what people’s own personal different definitions for words mean here?
If there is a difference between ‘thinking something is true’ from ‘knowing something is true’, which there obviously is, then how about some examples be provided, and then ‘we’ work together, peacefully, and find out what can be known as IS actually True and Right, in Life?
I have already provided one to ‘look at’ and discuss, but if ‘you’ people want to carry on for say the next thousands years or so ‘bickering’ over what could be done, then keep doing so. The actual True and Right known answers, in Life, are passing ‘you’ by.
If what someone knows something to be true, then, again, this is because they have ALREADY obtained and seen the proof and facts for it.
If people are still searching for things to help them to identify how to ‘try to’ justify their claims, then OBVIOUSLY they are still only at the ‘thinking’, ‘pre/assuming or believing’ it is true stage, and so still have some way to go yet.
Why are ‘you’ TELLING ‘us’ what ‘we’ NEED to do here?
I will, once more, suggest that if anyone wants to present a view or a claim here, especially in a philosophy forum, then they have obtained and gained the proof and facts for their view and claim BEFORE they even begin to present them here.
Which, like EVERY past person’s views, has NEVER really progressed human beings forward in any Truly helpful and guiding way for everyone.
You can understand something or someone and not know what it is or who they are really.
1 Like
Two year olds pick up ‘knowledge as a skill’. In fact, they, for example, can pick up obtaining ‘language knowledge skill’ far quicker, simpler, and easier than adults can.
What is ‘awry’ here is believing that ‘knowledge can be a belief’. A ‘belief’ is just something some people do when they are either not sure of something, or they claim to be certain of something but have no proof nor facts that can back up and support the belief.
See, if one has come to know something, for sure, then there is NO need for belief anymore.
When something is known to be true, then why would one continue to just believe it to be true?
This is not to say some people don’t keep choosing to believe something is true, but if they know that it is true, then why do they keep choosing to believe that it is true?
I agree that epistemology matters because we’re constantly making judgments about what to believe and why. I especially like the distinction between sincerely believing something and actually having sufficient grounds to call it knowledge.
At the same time, I think epistemology also has to recognize that not all knowledge fits neatly into a conscious process of weighing evidence. We rely on perception, memory, intuition, testimony, and experience constantly, often without being able to articulate a justification for each belief.
So perhaps part of the question is not only “What reasons do I have for believing this?” but also “What makes this particular way of forming beliefs trustworthy in the first place?”
New to this stuff? There’s a few misapprehensions in this and subsequent posts. Might be down to a bunch of jargon being used here.
Here’s how philosophers usually use these terms. Sentences, propositions and such are the sort of thing that can be tru or false. If someone thinks the sentence is true, then we say they believe it. If it is true, and they believe it, and there are good reasons to believe it, then we say they know it.
That might look stipulative - and it is - but it is the result of a lot of work on how we can use these terms fairly consistently.
Notably, sometime folk are puzzled by the use of “belief” as “something held true” rather than as having faith or confidence. That’s not what is being discussed here, at least not directly.
Hope that helps.
I did, kind of; the basis of knowledge is in the doing, not in justified true belief. So I worry that the path your are adopting might mot take you to the right place. But I’ll let you go, and see what develops.
Only some of ‘you’ people do this. As for the rest of ‘us’ we have chosen to neither believe nor disbelieve anything.
And, as I continually ask, “If you cannot justify your belief, then why do you believe it to be true?”
For those who are curious, while one has and maintains a belief, they are not open to discovering, nor learning, and understanding what the irrefutable facts and Truths are exactly.
Are you saying or suggesting that ‘you’ are new to this stuff?
Either way, you made a statement and claim, but put a question mark at the end of it.
Is that the same human beings who are STILL ‘trying to’ work out how to discover the answer to age-old questions?
Is this any different from what I have said and meant here?
Nothing ‘you’ said here was not already known, well, by ‘me’ anyway.
I think there’s an important difference between not having a justified belief and being completely neutral about an unanswered question. If I believe something tentatively because the evidence currently points that way, that doesn’t mean I’m closed to learning more or changing my mind.
In fact, I’d say intellectual humility requires exactly that. And justification doesn’t necessarily mean having an irrefutable proof; most of what we reasonably believe about the world rests on evidence that is strong but still open to revision. The real question, then, may be whether our beliefs are proportioned to the evidence and whether we’re genuinely willing to revise them when better evidence comes along.
1 Like
What does it mean to ‘know’ [something] is, once again, you ALREADY have the irrefutable facts, proof, or sound and valid argument [for it].
What it means to ‘believe’ [something] is, once again, either you just ‘think’ it is true, or, you ‘believe’ it is true or it cannot be any other way.
Now, if ‘you’ ‘think or believe’ something is true, then you do not yet know that it is true.
Why do ‘you’ and ‘some others’, say they believe it, when if ‘you’ and ‘them’ just said what is absolutely and irrefutably True instead.
If ‘you and them’ did the latter, there ‘you and them’ would STOP confusing things and making things unnecessarily puzzling.
If someone ‘thinks’ a sentence is true, then the irrefutable Truth is - They think the sentence is true.
Saying, “They believe it”, is besides completely unnecessary, causes confusion, it is also is another sentence and claim that could be False and untrue.
Again, if people want to find, recognise, understand, learn, see, and/or know the actual irrefutable Truths, in Life, then they have to start speaking the Truth only.
If ‘it’ is True (and there is a difference between ‘truth’ and ‘Truth’, by the way, and when used in this way removes ALL confusion), anyway, if ‘it’ is True, then who cares what ‘they’ think or believe?
If the sentence is True or False, then what people think, pre/assume, or beleive is of NO matter whatsoever.
The Universe, for example, IS infinite and eternal. So, who cares, what people think, pre/assume, or believe here?
Exactly like, the sun does not revolve around the earth. So, who cares, what people think, pre/assume, or believe here?
Just like, the earth is not flat. So, who cares, what people think, pre/assume, or believe here?
‘Belief’ has NO bearing at all on Truth. Whereas, ‘knowing’ has completely.
NOW to discover, or learn, understand, and know the actual irrefutable Truth of things is about one of the most simplest and easiest things to do, in Life. This is in regards to the Truly meaningful questions, in Life, also known as the philosophical questions, anyway.
Of course, this is only after one learns HOW TO find and know them.
If anyone would like to present an example of a Truly meaningful/question, which they would REALLY like the answer to, then ‘we’ can begin.
Ok. Suit yourself.
Are you an engineer, by any chance?
1 Like
Again, these people WITH BELIEFS want to add MORE completely unnecessary words and claims.
Who cares if one CLAIMS that ‘their belief’ is ‘now’ a so-called ‘justified’ or not?
Either their claim is True or it is not. If their claim is True, then they KNOW that it is. And, if their claim is True, then they MUST ALREADY HAVE the proof, the facts, and/or the sound and valid argument for their claim.
Okay, but who cares?
WHY ‘believe’ anything?
If you ‘believe’ something is true, then ‘the belief’ is either you only ‘think’ it is true or you are ‘not sure’ if is true or not, or, you either believe it is true and are not open to anything contrary or opposing. But, either way, you do not yet have proof for what you are believing.
Whereas, if you ‘know’ something is true, then you already have what backs up and supports your knowledge/knowing fully.
For ‘you’, personally, maybe, but how does anyone else ‘know’ that ‘you’ are open to learning more or anew?
Obviously, when some people say they “I believe something”, they are not open at all. So, how does ‘the other’ KNOW ‘you’, exactly?
Now, a very clear way to overcome ‘this hurdle’ is if EVERY one just said something like, “This is ‘my view’ …, only”, or “This is what I think’ …, only”, then EVERY one else would ‘know’ that ‘that one’ is OPEN.
See, when some people say, “This is what I believe …”, then some people literally mean that they are NOT open.
So, instead of ‘you’ saying, “I believe something tentatively because the evidence currently points this or that way”, and instead ‘you’ just said something like, “In my view …”, or “I think …”, then ‘I’, anyway, would ‘know’ what ‘you’ meant, without having to say all of those other unnecessary words.
Great. And, let ‘us’ not forget that intellectual humility could be said and meant in just the two words alone, “I think …”.
It is when people say, “I believe …”, which can all too quickly, easily, and simply cause unnecessary confusion.
And, by the way, if some ‘knows’ something, then saying, “I know …”, is NOT arrogance NOR pride, but just ‘a fact’. Unless, of course, ‘that one’ is proved Wrong.
But, for example, there would have been NO use in ‘the one’ who ‘knew’ that the sun does not revolve around the earth showing what you call ‘intellectual humility’ here. As ‘that one’ did ‘know’.
So, if ‘that one’ started with “I think the earth revolves around the sun”, then they would be making False claim and presenting a False statement.
So, for ‘intellectual humility’ or what some might call for ‘intellectual honesty’ all one has to do is just express ‘the view’ as “This is my view …”, and if they ‘know’ that ‘their view’ is True, then expressing “I know …”, is just honesty. Exactly like when one is expressing ‘their view or claim’ and they do not yet know if it is true or right or not, then expressing, “I think …”, is also the honest Truth.
So, most of what ‘you’ and ‘some others’ ‘now’ so-call “reasonably believe” ‘about the world’ ‘you’ and ‘them’ just ‘think’ is true, right?
WHY ‘beleive’, ‘reasonably believe’, ‘justly believe’, or have any other form of ‘believing’ and ‘belief’, when ALL of them belong under the labels “I do not yet know”, “I think”, or “I cannot prove True”?
Why not just make things so much simpler, quicker, easier, and efficient and just replace all of the unnecessary and just say either;
“I know …”. Or,
“I think …”?
If ‘we’ all did this, then ‘the others’ would ‘know’ how to reply in a much more understanding way.
What was the so-called “unreal question”, exactly?
What a Truly convoluted and unnecessary way to live one’s life.
Either ‘you’ ‘know’ something is true, or, ‘you’ ‘think’ it is true.
How much simpler and easier could things get here?
Even basing things on ‘evidence’ and not on ‘proof’ is totally absurd and ridiculous also, well, to me anyway. But that is for another thread, maybe.
Again, people only ‘believe’ things when they do ‘not know’ or are ‘not yet sure’. Which, in the simplest of terms, is when ‘they think’ something is true.
No…
Ok. Thanks.
I’m developing my account of epistemology one post at a time. Some questions will be answered as the thread continues, particularly when I explain more of Witt’s role. For now, I’ll continue the numbered posts so readers can follow the argument as a connected whole.
I’ll try to keep the posts short and to the point.
2 Likes
I find the traditional definition of knowledge adequate. S knows P if S believes P, P is true and P is justified.
For example I know 7 < 10 because 7 + 3 = 10 and 7 < 10 and I believe 7 < 10.
Intuition is another way of knowing. The difference is that there’s no justification/argument in this case. However intuition for most people tends to work.
There’s also katalepsis (understanding) which people say isn’t the same as gnosis (knowing). However I’ve never heard a talk or read an article on katalepsis. It’s just one of those things that nobody cares about.