Well there are serious idiots running around claiming that knowledge is based on "good and sufficent factual evidence". This is absolutely absurd.

Anywhere other than under logic, anything can work wonderfully. Any idiotic claim is profound wonderfulness. However, when working within the parameters of objective logic, this is total absurdity.

Within the parameters of logic, truth does not depend on the perception of the observer. Perception depends on truth/actuality. Truth, more specifically, true/false, are quantities of actuality. They are the only quantities of actuality.

CAN A PERSON CHOOSE WHAT TO BELIEVE?
No.
Regardless of what an individual claims about what they know and believe, a belief is nothing more than an involuntary position on the actuality of something based on the individual's extent of understanding.
1. You claim that you are not sitting in front of your computer reading this, but what is your real belief?
2. You can claim you have a billion dollars under your mattress, but what is our real belief?

DOES GREAT, WONDERFUL, FACTUAL SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE MEAN THAT A PERSON HAS KNOWLEDGE?
Hell no.
A claim/belief that X is true is a belief that X is true in actuality. This does not mean X is necessarily true in actuality. Any form of supporting evidence you produce that is supposedly good, substantial, factual, or fabulous, does not make X true in actuality. Furthermore, it does not mean you have knowledge that X is true.

Regardless of any claim of definite knowledge, actual knowledge only occurs when your belief corresponds to actuality. If you believe X to be completely true, and X is not true, you do to not have knowledge.

IS THERE A DIFFERENCE TO A CLAIM OF BELIEF AND A CLAIM OF KNOWLEDGE?
There is a claim of belief and claim of knowledge. Then there is the state of belief and state of knowledge.
1. Anyone can claim anything under the sun. But for the sake of this section, we shall assume that a claim is an expression of an individual's state of being.
2. No matter what the claim, a person either believes X to be true, X to be false, or does not know. No matter what the claim a person makes or no matter the state of being, it is always a belief.
3. A state of knowledge is only when a belief corresponds to actuality.

Anybody that does not abide by the above is not dealing within the parameters of objective logic.

I don't abide by most of "the above", and I'm still here (the world has not stopped objectively revolving on its speculative axis).

How do I explain this?

I don't abide by most of "the above", and I'm still here (the world has not stopped objectively revolving on its speculative axis).

How do I explain this?
Do you consider truth to exist independently of the observer?

Define: "truth"

Truth is something that is true or false in actuality. X is true. X is false. So something like the earth being round. The earth is round. True or false? The truth is what earth is in actuality terms of being round or not round.

Lix,

"2. No matter what the claim, a person either believes X to be true, X to be false, or does not know. No matter what the claim a person makes or no matter the state of being, it is always a belief."

No. Knowledge and belief are not the same thing. You can believe something without knowing the answer.

The people that I don't understand are those who know something is true but choose not to believe because they liked their belief better for whatever reason, even though there is empirical evidence to the contrary.

"the earth is round" depends on the subject's POV. If you happen to be in a cave, it means something different to if you happen to be a space-shuttle pilot. We see a round 'ocean' though - the curve in the horizon which gets more obvious the higher up you climb (a mountain, or an air column, in a balloon perhaps).

... knowledge is based on "good and sufficient factual evidence".



[B]CAN A PERSON CHOOSE WHAT TO BELIEVE?
Yes, to a greater or lesser extent.



[B]DOES GREAT, WONDERFUL, FACTUAL SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE MEAN THAT A PERSON HAS KNOWLEDGE?
Hell yes.



[B]IS THERE A DIFFERENCE TO A CLAIM OF BELIEF AND A CLAIM OF KNOWLEDGE?


Yes.

[babble snipped]

CAN A PERSON CHOOSE WHAT TO BELIEVE?
No.
Regardless of what an individual claims about what they know and believe, a belief is nothing more than an involuntary position on the actuality of something based on the individual's extent of understanding.
1. You claim that you are not sitting in front of your computer reading this, but what is your real belief?
2. You can claim you have a billion dollars under your mattress, but what is our real belief?
I think this issue is much more complicated than you present.
1) your examples are poor ones. they involve concrete objects, and, ironically, given what you say below about evidence, relatively easy fact-checking operations can attack or support those beliefs.
2) if you choose a belief like 'I am a great guy', I think it becomes much harder to say whether one can choose this or not.
3) there are also official beliefs and other beliefs that may or may not be the same. A person can think they love women, but when it comes down to a relationship this person distrusts them and ends up hitting them - because they are 'all bitches out to screw ________ over.'


3. A state of knowledge is only when a belief corresponds to actuality.So we can never know if anyone has knowledge then? There may be knowledge, but since evidence is not the criterion used to determine if a belief is knowledge, we can never say 'this is knowledge' In fact we can't say 'this is not knowledge either.' We can only throw evidence at the beliefs but never know.

"the earth is round" depends on the subject's POV. If you happen to be in a cave, it means something different to if you happen to be a space-shuttle pilot. We see a round 'ocean' though - the curve in the horizon which gets more obvious the higher up you climb (a mountain, or an air column, in a balloon perhaps).
Who cares? The question was about whether or not you believe truth exists independent of perception.

Who cares? The question was about whether or not you believe truth exists independent of perception.

Truth exists independent of perception but knowledge depends on correct perception of evidence.


StrangerInAStrangeLa
I Am Therefore I Think (1,346 posts)
Today, 07:35 PM #562

“ Originally Posted by lixluke
This is incorrect. Not having evidence does not mean not having knowledge. Knowledge is not based on evidence. Knowledge is based on truth/fallacy.
If X is true, and one believes X is true, one has knowledge that X is true whether one has evidence or not.

The claim that "one has knowledge because one has 'good and sufficient' evidence" is illogical. There is no such thing as "good sufficient" evidence. If there was such an animal, perhaps you could present it.

A belief may or not be substantiated in any form of fact. That is irrelevant to whether or not somebody's belief that X is true correspobds with X being true in actuality.

All your caviling about definitions of epistemology has nothing to do with the epistemological questions presented. Is there there a God?
Yes or no? ”

Absolutely absurd.
You seem to confuse truth & knowledge. Whatever is true, is true regardless of whether anyone knows, believes or guesses.
Reminds me of the stupid saying "A stopped clock is right twice a day.". Actually, a stopped clock is never right any more than a painting of a clock is right twice a day. If it's stopped, it's not measuring & showing the time. If someone sees a stopped clock showing 11:20 but otherwise doesn't know what time it is & it just happens to be 11:20 at that moment, he still doesn't know what time it is.
Whether a belief not based on evidence is true or not, it's not knowledge. Guesses are not knowledge, regardless of whether they happen to coincide with fact.
It also reminds me of "psychics" who make 200 predictions of which 23 come true. Getting 23 out of 200 isn't being correct 23 times. It's making enough guesses that some will come true but they're still guesses & guesses are not knowledge.
If you truly believe knowledge isn't based on evidence, there's no reason for anyone to participate in this with you. It's a useless futile frustrating farce.
1111

I think this issue is much more complicated than you present.
1) your examples are poor ones. they involve concrete objects, and, ironically, given what you say below about evidence, relatively easy fact-checking operations can attack or support those beliefs.
2) if you choose a belief like 'I am a great guy', I think it becomes much harder to say whether one can choose this or not.
3) there are also official beliefs and other beliefs that may or may not be the same. A person can think they love women, but when it comes down to a relationship this person distrusts them and ends up hitting them - because they are 'all bitches out to screw ________ over.'


So we can never know if anyone has knowledge then? There may be knowledge, but since evidence is not the criterion used to determine if a belief is knowledge, we can never say 'this is knowledge' In fact we can't say 'this is not knowledge either.' We can only throw evidence at the beliefs but never know.
1. Of course you can know something. Knowledge is nothing more than a belief that corresponds to actuality. If somebody says "I know X is true", they are claiming to have knowledge that X is true in actuality. If X is true in actuality, they have actual knowledge X is true.

The person doesn't have knowledge that X not true because of some sort of great evidence. Knowledge that X is true is because X is true in actuality. If X is false in actuality, the individual is incorrect in claiming that X is true.


Lix,

"2. No matter what the claim, a person either believes X to be true, X to be false, or does not know. No matter what the claim a person makes or no matter the state of being, it is always a belief."

No. Knowledge and belief are not the same thing. You can believe something without knowing the answer.
Wrong that is a contadictory statement. Your belief is a positon of the answer. Non knowing whether something is true or not is not a belief. It is simply not knowing. It is impossible for a person to be in the state of position about X being true or not. Yet claiming to not know.

1. Of course you can know something. Knowledge is nothing more than a belief that corresponds to actuality. If somebody says "I know X is true", they are claiming to have knowledge that X is true in actuality. If X is true in actuality, they have actual knowledge X is true.

The person doesn't have knowledge that X not true because of some sort of great evidence. Knowledge that X is true is because X is true in actuality. If X is false in actuality, the individual is incorrect in claiming that X is true.It seemed like you had a problem with evidence being brought in to prove that a belief was knowledge.

DOES GREAT, WONDERFUL, FACTUAL SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE MEAN THAT A PERSON HAS KNOWLEDGE?
Hell no.

I understood that you thought one could know something. They have a belief and it is true. But how can they or we determine it is knowledge except via evidence? How can they know they are right to know?

How does one determine that something is 'true in reality' in your system, if not via evidence?

Lixluke,

"Wrong that is a contadictory statement. Your belief is a positon of the answer. Non knowing whether something is true or not is not a belief. It is simply not knowing. It is impossible for a person to be in the state of position about X being true or not. Yet claiming to not know."

Oh forget it. This is very simple and yet you still don't get it. Your sentence didn't even make sense, it's just babbling.

Stranger said,

"If you truly believe knowledge isn't based on evidence, there's no reason for anyone to participate in this with you. It's a useless futile frustrating farce."

Exactly.

"How does one determine that something is 'true in reality' in your system, if not via evidence?"

Excellent question Simon and to the point which is that if he doesn't like the fact that there may be proof of something he wants to call it a belief as if it were the same thing. That is what he is trying to prove (irony), by trying to claim they (knowledge and belief)are the same he can say nothing is proveable. Such as Dinosaurs once roamed the earth or the Earth is round. They are only beliefs. Am I right Lix ?

It seemed like you had a problem with evidence being brought in to prove that a belief was knowledge.



I understood that you thought one could know something. They have a belief and it is true. But how can they or we determine it is knowledge except via evidence? How can they know they are right to know?

How does one determine that something is 'true in reality' in your system, if not via evidence?
Evidence is material used for obtaining/supporting to a conclusion.
Everything that in one's understanding is belief. Any conclusion one arrives to based on any form of evidence is a belief.

I have come to the conclusion that my computer is in front of me. It is true that my computer is in front of me. It is a fact that my computer is in front of me. My computer is definitely in front of me. I know my computer is in front of me. <- All of these statements are my belief that - to the extent of my understanding, it is true in actuality that my computer is in front of me.

If I come to a definite conclusion about anything based on any form of evidence somebody presents to me, it is still a belief. I claim based on all the given proof and evidence that X is true. I know for a fact that X is true. It is a belief either way that X is true in actuality. And it is a claim that I have actual knowledge that X is true because I believe X to be true as all the evidence allows me to come to this conclusion. Any conclusion I arrive to is based on the extent of my understanding.

Any time somebody makes a claim of knowledge, belief, or whatever you want to call it, they do not have to use the phrase
"to my knowledge"
"as far as I know"
"to my understanding"

They all mean the same thing. The phrases need not be mentioned because it is understood that anybody, having any state of belief, or making any claim of fact, based on any form of evidence -> is always within the parameters of one's own understanding.

Anytime, somebodt says:
"in my opinion"
I believe"

It a claim based on that individual's extent of understanding. I can say I know X is true for a fact. I can say I believe X is true for a fact. It is the same thing. Everything I claim to know is what I invoumtaryily believe.

CAN A PERSON CHOOSE WHAT TO BELIEVE?
No.
Regardless of what an individual claims about what they know and believe, a belief is nothing more than an involuntary position on the actuality of something based on the individual's extent of understanding.
1. You claim that you are not sitting in front of your computer reading this, but what is your real belief?
2. You can claim you have a billion dollars under your mattress, but what is our real belief?

People can choose what to believe (i.e. accept as true). Many people choose to believe things that make them feel good. So if some assertion is attractive / satisfying then it "must be true".


DOES GREAT, WONDERFUL, FACTUAL SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE MEAN THAT A PERSON HAS KNOWLEDGE?
Hell no.
A claim/belief that X is true is a belief that X is true in actuality. This does not mean X is necessarily true in actuality. Any form of supporting evidence you produce that is supposedly good, substantial, factual, or fabulous, does not make X true in actuality. Furthermore, it does not mean you have knowledge that X is true.

Regardless of any claim of definite knowledge, actual knowledge only occurs when your belief corresponds to actuality. If you believe X to be completely true, and X is not true, you do to not have knowledge.

A person whom posesses evidence posesses knowledge. Part of your analysis appears to be based confused definitions so I'll lay them out:

Truth - When an idea or notion in the human mind corresponds to actual reality.
Evidence - A demonstration of that correspondence.

This means that a person whom posesses evidence posesses a demonstration of the correspondence between what's in their mind and actual reality. That is objective knowledge.


IS THERE A DIFFERENCE TO A CLAIM OF BELIEF AND A CLAIM OF KNOWLEDGE?
There is a claim of belief and claim of knowledge. Then there is the state of belief and state of knowledge.
1. Anyone can claim anything under the sun. But for the sake of this section, we shall assume that a claim is an expression of an individual's state of being.
2. No matter what the claim, a person either believes X to be true, X to be false, or does not know. No matter what the claim a person makes or no matter the state of being, it is always a belief.
3. A state of knowledge is only when a belief corresponds to actuality.[/FONT][/SIZE]

I agree with a good chunk of this but I disagree with the state of belief. I think this may be more accurate:

1) A person believes 'X' is true.
2) A person believes 'X' might be true.
3) A person believes 'X' is false.
4) A person believes 'X' might be false.
5) A person believes there is insufficient information for or against 'X'.

A person whom posesses evidence posesses knowledge. Part of your analysis appears to be based confused definitions so
Wrong. A person who possesses a belief that corresponds to truth possesses knowledge. Evidence is irrelevant to possession of knowledge. Knowledge is not based on evidence. It's based on truth.

Most people's understanding of the term "belief" is linguistic as opposed to an actual involuntary state. A belief is really an involuntary position about something that is within the parameters of the believer's extent of understanding. Everything one knows to be true is one's belief. The term "knowledge" can be used in varying connotations. But "Actual Knowledge" of something occurs only when somebody's belief about something is true in actuality. Evidence is not proof of knowledge it is material used to support a conclusion. The conclusion may or may not be true. It is only knowledge if the conclusion is true.

HOW EVIDENCE WORKS:

Somebody comes to the conclusion that something is true.
Somebody uses proof observation or evidence to prove it to be true.

"There is a bear chasing me. I know for a fact because I can see him, and he will eat me if I stop running."

Whatever the evidence may be, the individual believes the bear is chasing him. He claims to know the bear is chasing him in actuality based on whatever evidence. Thus, given the evidence, it can easily be concluded by anybody that it is true the bear is chaisng him. No matter what, it is a belief that it is true in actuality that he is being chased by the bear. Any conclusion of truth anybody arrives at based on any form of evidence is that person's belief that the conclusion is true in actuality.

Then, the person, states "I know for a fact that the bear is chasing me". "I have knowledge that the bear is definitely chasing me". There is no reason for anybody to believe in this case that the bear is not chaisng the individual. Thus, everybody can come to the conclusion that the bear is definitely chasing him. Based on all the evidence, everybody has concluded that they have arrived at definite knowledge.

Wrong. A person who possesses a belief that corresponds to truth possesses knowledge. Evidence is irrelevant to possession of knowledge. Knowledge is not based on evidence. It's based on truth.

Most people's understanding of the term "belief" is linguistic as opposed to an actual involuntary state. A belief is really an involuntary position about something that is within the parameters of the believer's extent of understanding. Everything one knows to be true is one's belief. The term "knowledge" can be used in varying connotations. But "Actual Knowledge" of something occurs only when somebody's belief about something is true in actuality. Evidence is not proof of knowledge it is material used to support a conclusion. The conclusion may or may not be true. It is only knowledge if the conclusion is true.

Oh coolskill, you're so close that you can practically taste the banana. Your definition of truth is very close but incorrect and it's skewing everything else. So lets address that first. In the simplest way possible, tell me what truth is.

Lix
Are you really George Bush?
1111

I consider everything I am saying here is true in actuality because of logic under proof by logic. It is still a belief. I claim 1 + 1 to equal 2. It is still my belief. Regardless, I claim to have knowledge that all of this is true in actuality because I beleive it is true in actuality. All because of I consider proof through logic the greatest form of evidence.

I'm not asking for your description of truth (i.e. what's it like?)... I am asking for your definition of truth (i.e. what is it?) in the simplest possible verbiage you can muster.

1+1=2 is 1 of the few things which are logicly selfevident. It cannot possibly be wrong.
1111

1+1=2 is 1 of the few things which are logicly selfevident. It cannot possibly be wrong.
1111
Irrelevant.

I'm not asking for your description of truth (i.e. what's it like?)... I am asking for your definition of truth (i.e. what is it?) in the simplest possible verbiage you can muster.
Quantity of actuality. There is only true or false. Trut is whatever is actual.

Irrelevant.
Quantity of actuality.

That sounds like a gradient. 2 x actuality would be different than 4 x actuality no?


There is only true or false. Trut is whatever is actual.

What is 'actual'?

I consider everything I am saying here is true in actuality because of logic under proof by logic."

WTF

"It is still a belief. I claim 1 + 1 to equal 2. It is still my belief. Regardless, I claim to have knowledge that all of this is true in actuality because I beleive it is true in actuality. All because of I consider proof through logic the greatest form of evidence.

No it is not your belief, it is common KNOWLEDGE that 1 + 1 equals 2. 4 year olds learn that these days.

Once it is known and understood to be a fact it is knowledge.

A belief is either something that we do not or can not know, or is a gray area where we may possess some of the evidence or most of the evidence but not enough to claim it to be a fact. We can not at that point claim KNOWLEDGE. It is a BELIEF.

What we know is not the same as what we believe.

But your gonna say, "WRONG" so go ahead.

What we know is not the same as what we believe.That's an arbitrary definition: According to Kant there is experienced belief and contingent belief, and that's about it. Belief is 'confidence', or 'lack of uncertainty'; the only things that are certain are logical certainties like: "if you have an apple, and you find another apple, you can have 2 apples (instead of 1)".

However, this is contingent. Everything is actually - except what you've experienced and what you can recall.

Vkothii,

It's a valid definition to seperate knowledge and belief.

I should have been more clear.

To explain belief and the variables that exists within said belief would depend on what is being discussed.

But you can know something. You would not say, I believe I have an apple in my hand. You would say I know I have an apple in my hand.

If we were talking about something that we can not know. We would be discussing our beliefs. If you try to claim knowledge, in other words you say you know, than I ask you how. There is a leap between the two. One can be proven and the other either can not or has not yet.

Yes, you are saying there are things we know, and things we can 'believe' are possible (things we 'can know'); which is experience, vs contingency.

So you seem to be repeating what I said after all.

That sounds like a gradient. 2 x actuality would be different than 4 x actuality no?



What is 'actual'?
Everything I am talking about is within the scope of logic. True/false independent of observation. Not dependent of observation. I don't know what you are talking about.




No it is not your belief, it is common KNOWLEDGE that 1 + 1 equals 2. 4 year olds learn that these days.

Once it is known and understood to be a fact it is knowledge.

A belief is either something that we do not or can not know, or is a gray area where we may possess some of the evidence or most of the evidence but not enough to claim it to be a fact. We can not at that point claim KNOWLEDGE. It is a BELIEF.

Completely wrong.
It is the belief of the observer that "1+1=2" is true in actuality. The observer claims it as knowledge because the observer believes that 1+1=2 in actuality.

Your proclaimation that it is "1+1=2" is common knowledge is only because "1+1=2" is commonly believed to be true.


There are the following in logic:
- Truth (All things that are actual -> independent of perception of any observer.)
- Observer (Perceives, and involuntarily draws conclusions about truth.)
- Evidence/Proof - Something used to come to conclusions of truth.
- Extent of Belief (Everything the observer understands to be true. This is not "belief" in any other sense of the word people randomly use. This is "belief" in the sense of what an observer involuntarily "believes" no matter what is said or claimed.)
- Particular Belief (An involuntary conclusion of truth on a particular matter.)
- Knowledge (Any particular belief of truth that is true in actuality.)


CONSIDER
I "believe" that "1+1=2" is true in actuality.
Knowledge is when belief corresponds with actuality.
Thus, I claim to have knowledge that "1+1=2" is true in actuality.
I claim that I know for a fact that 1+1=2. I do so based on my belief that "1+1=2".

The term "common knowledge" is just a phrase used to described a particular matter that is commonly believed to be true in actuality.

When an individual states "to my knowledge", the individual is refering to "Extent of Belief".


In the case of "1+1=2", I consider it to be true, not because it is commonly accepted as true, but because it is logically proven/evident to be true. (Although, the reason I consider it to be true is irrelevant.) The only thing that is relevant is whether or not what I believe corresponds to actual truth.
To the extent of my knowledge, 1+1=2. My evidence/proof does not make it true. Truth is not created by evidence or common knowledge. Evidence only allows me to come to a conclusion on whether or not something is true.

"I have evidence that X is true. Therefore, X is true." < -Complete logical fallacy. X is true or false independent of any form of evidence/proof or common knowledge anybody can proclaim.

Lix,

I would hate to have been your HS teacher.

Forget it, you are off your rocker.

Vkothii,

"Yes, you are saying there are things we know, and things we can 'believe' are possible (things we 'can know'); which is experience, vs contingency."

"So you seem to be repeating what I said after all."

No. I am not repeating what you are saying. Things that we know (fact) and things we believe are possible are quite different.

We will learn many things in the future, but that does not mean we know them now. We may believe they will come to pass but we can not claim knowledge at this time.

This is the separation, please don't twist my intent again. I have tried twice in very simplistic terms to explain the difference, if it is not clear, than I believe you just don't want to agree to or accept my explanation. Either way is ok with me.

Evidence is material used for obtaining/supporting to a conclusion................
I have read your response a couple of times.

Given that you consider the conclusions, I know, I believe, etc. all the same. Given that another person can only evaluate my conclusions using evidence and then draw their own conclusion.....
we can never decide if something someone believes is knowledge or belief. Since we can only amass evidence, draw a conclusion.

How does one decide it is true in actuality?
(if one does in your belief system)

I have read your response a couple of times.

Given that you consider the conclusions, I know, I believe, etc. all the same. Given that another person can only evaluate my conclusions using evidence and then draw their own conclusion.....
we can never decide if something someone believes is knowledge or belief. Since we can only amass evidence, draw a conclusion.

How does one decide it is true in actuality?
(if one does in your belief system)
What are you talking about? One can come to conclusions of what is true in actuality.

There are millions of methods that allow a person to come to concluson. Anything can be considered evidence or proof according to whatever standard you are using. I prefer logic. These methods allow us to come to conclusions about what is true or false.

You don't even have to refer to it as "belief". Belief is just a term that represents an idea. You can call it subjective knowledge or whatever. The term is simply used to refer to any conclusions of true/false one has involuntarily drawn about any matter. Thus, you use whatever method you can, of obtaining truth.

I never said knowledge and belief are the same. A "claim of knowledge" is different from "possion of objective knowledge/actual knowledge". A claim of knowledge is a belief. Objective knowledge is when a belief corresponds to actuality.

There is a difference between claiming you know something is true and actually having the knowledge it is true. Regardless of what one may claim, they do not have knowledge uless their claim is true in actuality.

I can claim to know I am in front of a computer. No matter what, my claim of knowledge is a belief. It is a belief that, within the parameters of my understanding, it is true I am in front of my computer. Thus, I conclude that I know I am in front of my computer, and I consider it to be actual knowledge. Anybody that wants to challenge me on it, can try.

Now regardless of my claim, it is only actual knowledge if I am in front of my computer. If I am in actuality not in front of my computer, it is not actual knowledge. It is a misconception. A misconception is a claim of knowledge that does not coincide with actual knowledge.

A realization is a conclusion that what you believed to be true is false in actuality.

While any claim of knowledge I make is a belief (a conclusion based on the parameters of my understanding), does that mean it is not knowledge? Of course not. While I understand that my claim to be in front of my computer is a belief, it does not mean it is not knowledge. Anything I believe to be true, I involuntarily claim it to be knowledge. A claim of truth is a claim that something is true in actuality. Within the parameters of my understanding, I am in front of my computer. Therefore, I make the claim "I have knowledge I am in front of my computer". I know I am in front of my computer.

Every statement of fact that I make is based on my understanding of what is true in actuality.

I claim to have knowledge that X is true.

If it is given that X is true in actuality, my claim of knowledge is correct. While my "claim of knowledge" is nothing more than a "conclusion based on the parameters of my understanding", it is also "actual knowledge" because X is true in actuality.

If it is given that X is not true in actuality, my claim of knowledge is incorrect. While my "claim of knowledge" is nothing more than a "conclusion based on the parameters of my understanding", it is nonetheless a "misconception" because X is not true in actuality.


Understanding of these basic rules of logic allow people to have productive conversation.
I have discussions in which I have said" "It is my opinion that X is true."
Only to get a response: "It is your opinion. Therefore, X is not true."
Such a discussion continues to spin in circles.

I am not repeating what you are saying. Things that we know (fact) and things we believe are possible are quite different.You mean, there are things we know because of experience (mistakes etc), and things we 'can know' because of contingency?
We will learn many things in the future, but that does not mean we know them now. We may believe they will come to pass but we can not claim knowledge at this time.

This is the separationWe will learn things only because we have learned things; what we know is separated from what we don't (but 'can know').

This is indeed a fundamental separation. Sorry, but you seem to be able to twist your own words; I've been saying this all along, since my first post in this thread; I do NOT disagree with this, and you are agreeing with, or repeating what I said.

If it is given that X is true in actuality, my claim of knowledge is correct."If it is given", by WHAT??

What "gives" X actuality, or makes a claim "true"?
Truth is agreement. Agreement is either a group response, or an individual 'conclusion'. In either case, experience and knowledge of the world is the ruler, against which any 'X' is determined (measured, looked at), to see if it fits. If it doesn't fit, it's generally believed (accepted contingently, by the group) to NOT be 'true', or "important".

We don't generally sit around deciding if it's true that we're alive, or that we need to eat, we just do things sometimes; we 'accept' how things are - like how you accept that you're alive, breathing (you DON'T need to 'believe' that oxygen is required for this, but you might know it's a requirement), you require water, food, shelter etc.

Vk,

"You mean, there are things we know because of experience (mistakes etc), and things we 'can know' because of contingency?
We will learn things only because we have learned things; what we know is separated from what we don't (but 'can know')."

As you state (but can know) yes I can agree with that. I was merely trying to be specific with Lix about the separation between knowledge (known) and belief (not known but can know).

Fair enough.

"If it is given", by WHAT??

What "gives" X actuality, or makes a claim "true"?
Truth is agreement. Agreement is either a group response, or an individual 'conclusion'. In either case, experience and knowledge of the world is the ruler, against which any 'X' is determined (measured, looked at), to see if it fits. If it doesn't fit, it's generally believed (accepted contingently, by the group) to NOT be 'true', or "important".

We don't generally sit around deciding if it's true that we're alive, or that we need to eat, we just do things sometimes; we 'accept' how things are - like how you accept that you're alive, breathing (you DON'T need to 'believe' that oxygen is required for this, but you might know it's a requirement), you require water, food, shelter etc.
I stated that X is true as a given. Given statements are logical devices. What you are talking about has nothing to do with it.
Given: All dogs are red. Rover is a dog.

Whatever you are talking about is irrelevant to logical givens, and conclusions that can only be drawn out of those givens.

I stated that X is true as a given."X is true as a given", is a statement. Whether it's logical or illogical is a contingency.
What if I make the statement: "Given that X is true (as a given), it's a statement which is contingent on further observations of X"...? Now what?

How's this for a statement (that I am giving, therefore it's a "given statement"): "...the use of logic to determine the 'truth' or 'falsity' of any statement, including this one, is a given."

Have you ever opened a book on predicate logic, or done any logical calculus? You seem to be all over the page, you want to believe that you can believe any "given statement", as long as you are the one giving it??

Your logical paradigm might appear to fit your personal logic-style, but you wouldn't pass the first test in a Philosophy course.

Given statements have nothing to do with wanting to believe it. It is only a decvice for determining logical validity. If I provide something is a given, it is given as true as a device for validity. It is stated as a given.
GIVEN: Assume X is true.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

The validity of the logical given X is determined by the logical validity of x given that x is the logical validity. Therefore X is not X but merely what appears to be the given logical valid of the logical validity that is X in my own mind. Lixluke 2008.

Like I said, I have pity for your former or current teachers.

HOW KNOWLEDGE WORKS
http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/5229/knowlegelt0.png

BLUE: Represents all truth in actuality independent of observation. All blue is everything that is outside of any conclusion by the observer.

YELLOW: Represents belief which is the scope of everything the observer has involuntarily concluded to be true. This is made up of knowledge and misconception.

GREEN: Represents knowledge. Everything an individual believes to be true, and also true in actuality.

RED: Represents misconception. Everything an individual believes to be true, but not true in actuality.

MISCONCPETION #1: Something is knowledge because evidence shows it to be true.
FACT #1: Evidence doesn't make something true. Something is true only because it corresponds to actual truth.

MISCONCEPTION #2: A belief is any claim that isn't based on evidence.
FACT #2: A belief is any involuntary conclusion that a person draws about a metter regardless of method.


HOW LANGUAGE FITS IN
"I don't know" - Often the individual is referring to BLUE. However, if taken literally, can also include RED.

"I know" - Often the individual is referring to YELLOW. However, if taken literally, can only refer to green.

"I believe" - There can be numerous interpretations of this statement. However, if taken literally, refers to YELLOW which is everything within Green and RED.

I see, you've got this all worked out? All you have to do is say "X is true", and it is, like forever and ever?

GIVEN: Assume X is true.This statement leads to the response: "Why should I, what do I get if I do? Why is it true? Is 'X is true' something I must believe is true? If so, why must I? Is it because someone else said it was?", etc, etc, and etc.

You have no idea what you are talking about.This statement could apply to you, which could be why you made it. On the other hand....

"MISCONCPETION #1: Something is knowledge because evidence shows it to be true."

Are you kidding me !

"MISCONCEPTION #2: A belief is any claim that isn't based on evidence."

No. As both VK and I have pointed out and what you are not getting is that a belief can and should be based on some evidence, the strength of the belief should align with the strength of the evidence.

The separation is that one should not claim to know (absolute) without corresponding evidence to back the claim. Until that is available it is a belief. Otherwise you must back your claim with evidence, in other words proof.

You want to make knowledge and belief the same so you can continue to delude yourself with your beliefs that have no evidence to support said belief and claim that is the same as those things that are known and proveable. They are not.

lol should is such a wishful word.

lol should is such a wishful word.

Very true.

Again with the "belief is not the same as knowing something". Kant describes belief as: "that which is known because of direct, worldly experience, or that which is unknown or contingently believed".

Knowledge IS belief, ipso facto. Contingent belief is contingent knowledge, igitur.

"MISCONCPETION #1: Something is knowledge because evidence shows it to be true."

Are you kidding me !

"MISCONCEPTION #2: A belief is any claim that isn't based on evidence."

No. As both VK and I have pointed out and what you are not getting is that a belief can and should be based on some evidence, the strength of the belief should align with the strength of the evidence.

The separation is that one should not claim to know (absolute) without corresponding evidence to back the claim. Until that is available it is a belief. Otherwise you must back your claim with evidence, in other words proof.

You want to make knowledge and belief the same so you can continue to delude yourself with your beliefs that have no evidence to support said belief and claim that is the same as those things that are known and proveable. They are not.
I never said that knowledge and belief were the same. How do you conclude I am claiming knowledge and belief to be the same when I clearly stated that knowledge is only when a belief corresponds to truth. When a belief does not correspond to truth, it is not knowledge. Evidence can be anything under the sun. Anybody can claim anything to be evidence. Evidence does not make something true. Evidence does not determine whether something is knowledge or not. You are taking everything I am saying out of context, and imposing false claims that I never made.


I see, you've got this all worked out? All you have to do is say "X is true", and it is, like forever and ever?

This statement leads to the response: "Why should I, what do I get if I do? Why is it true? Is 'X is true' something I must believe is true? If so, why must I? Is it because someone else said it was?", etc, etc, and etc.

This statement could apply to you, which could be why you made it. On the other hand....
You don't get anything if X is true. It is a given. It is a given that X is true. You get nothing. You can simply draw conclusions based on what is given.

Lix,

"I never said that knowledge and belief were the same."

Well this is why I conclude that you are saying that.

"Any time somebody makes a claim of knowledge, belief, or whatever you want to call it, they do not have to use the phrase
"to my knowledge"
"as far as I know"
"to my understanding"

They all mean the same thing. The phrases need not be mentioned because it is understood that anybody, having any state of belief, or making any claim of fact, based on any form of evidence -> is always within the parameters of one's own understanding."

and this,

"It a claim based on that individual's extent of understanding. I can say I know X is true for a fact. I can say I believe X is true for a fact. It is the same thing. Everything I claim to know is what I invoumtaryily believe."

and this gem,

"Your proclaimation that it is "1+1=2" is common knowledge is only because "1+1=2" is commonly believed to be true."

and finally this,

"GREEN: Represents knowledge. Everything an individual believes to be true, and also true in actuality."

The true in acuality part is correct, the believes to be true is not the same.

Knowing and believing are not the same. Knowing is 100% at the time. I know this is an apple. Believing is everything form 0-99.9% I believe this is some form of fruit. Implying the lack of absolute fact. You could know that it is some form of fruit but not know a more definitive fact, such as the statement, I know this is an apple, I believe it is a red delicious. If you knew it was a red delicious you would say I know this is a red delicious apple.

You don't get anything if X is true. It is a given. It is a given that X is true. You get nothing. You can simply draw conclusions based on what is given.So what if I DON'T believe it's "true", but INSTEAD, I believe it's "not true"? What happens then, I get nothing?

Or if I believe "it might be true, but equally, it might not (be true)"? Do I get less than nothing? Am I allowed to conclude that 'X is true' is NOT TRUE??

IF it's "given" how do I "get" whatever it is? I do nothing, or I can only get nothing? That doesn't seem to be the case - just look at all the stuff in the above para.

To anyone who thinks belief and knowledge are not the same: they are the same, OK?

You have to believe that you know something, surely??
AND you must also have to believe that you don't (know something, or probably a lot of somethings).

Which means this:You want to make knowledge and belief the same so you can continue to delude yourself with your beliefs that have no evidence to support said belief...is total bullshit. If you seriously believe that what you know isn't belief, you are deluding yourself about what knowledge and belief are, or confusing what a 'fact' is, with what you 'know' about a fact (i.e. what YOU believe about the particular fact).

This does NOT depend on what 'belief' is, or what 'knowledge' is, it only depends on the nature of the 'fact'. It's a fact that we are orbiting a star, for example.
I believe this fact is true; I know the sun is in the sky every day through direct experience - therefore I KNOW we are orbiting a star.
This is a case of a true fact, and a belief, which being based on a directly observable (verifiable) 'truth', must then be a true belief, or 'correct knowledge of the world'.

What's confusing about it??

Everything I am talking about is within the scope of logic. True/false independent of observation. Not dependent of observation.

Ok, lets for a moment remove all human observers. Now name something that is "false" without a human observer.


I don't know what you are talking about.


You said truth is a quantity of actuality. 2 x actualty (meaning two times actuality) is a quantity. What is its differece from 4 x actuality?

Ok, lets for a moment remove all human observers. Now name something that is "false" without a human observer.



You said truth is a quantity of actuality. 2 x actualty (meaning two times actuality) is a quantity. What is its differece from 4 x actuality?
I already stated very clearly that true and false are the only quantites of actuality. There are no numbers involved. Yet after I made this clear, you talk about 2 and 4 which have nothing to do with true and false.


Lix,

"I never said that knowledge and belief were the same."

Well this is why I conclude that you are saying that.

"Any time somebody makes a claim of knowledge, belief, or whatever you want to call it, they do not have to use the phrase
"to my knowledge"
"as far as I know"
"to my understanding"

They all mean the same thing. The phrases need not be mentioned because it is understood that anybody, having any state of belief, or making any claim of fact, based on any form of evidence -> is always within the parameters of one's own understanding."

and this,

"It a claim based on that individual's extent of understanding. I can say I know X is true for a fact. I can say I believe X is true for a fact. It is the same thing. Everything I claim to know is what I invoumtaryily believe."

and this gem,

"Your proclaimation that it is "1+1=2" is common knowledge is only because "1+1=2" is commonly believed to be true."

and finally this,

"GREEN: Represents knowledge. Everything an individual believes to be true, and also true in actuality."

The true in acuality part is correct, the believes to be true is not the same.

Knowing and believing are not the same. Knowing is 100% at the time. I know this is an apple. Believing is everything form 0-99.9% I believe this is some form of fruit. Implying the lack of absolute fact. You could know that it is some form of fruit but not know a more definitive fact, such as the statement, I know this is an apple, I believe it is a red delicious. If you knew it was a red delicious you would say I know this is a red delicious apple.
I already stated clearly that a claim of knowledge is a belief. Acutal knowledge is a belief that is true. 0-99% certainty has nothing to do with it. Either way, when somebody states "I don't know", it is does not mean less than 100% certainty, it means o% certainty. Eitherway, certainty has no relevance because it is irrelevant to the scope of one's belief.


So what if I DON'T believe it's "true", but INSTEAD, I believe it's "not true"? What happens then, I get nothing?

Or if I believe "it might be true, but equally, it might not (be true)"? Do I get less than nothing? Am I allowed to conclude that 'X is true' is NOT TRUE??

IF it's "given" how do I "get" whatever it is? I do nothing, or I can only get nothing? That doesn't seem to be the case - just look at all the stuff in the above para.

To anyone who thinks belief and knowledge are not the same: they are the same, OK?

You have to believe that you know something, surely??
AND you must also have to believe that you don't (know something, or probably a lot of somethings).

Which means this:...is total bullshit. If you seriously believe that what you know isn't belief, you are deluding yourself about what knowledge and belief are, or confusing what a 'fact' is, with what you 'know' about a fact (i.e. what YOU believe about the particular fact).

This does NOT depend on what 'belief' is, or what 'knowledge' is, it only depends on the nature of the 'fact'. It's a fact that we are orbiting a star, for example.
I believe this fact is true; I know the sun is in the sky every day through direct experience - therefore I KNOW we are orbiting a star.
This is a case of a true fact, and a belief, which being based on a directly observable (verifiable) 'truth', must then be a true belief, or 'correct knowledge of the world'.

What's confusing about it??
You seemed to be confused as if you get something or get nothing. The point is that it is a given that X is true. It is a device for logic. If it is given that you have a triangle in which one angle is 28 degrees, you take the given, and stfu. Then you move on for the sake of the situation.

I already stated very clearly that true and false are the only quantites of actuality...
...
...

You did? Mind pointing out the post? It's entirely possible I missed it. At the same time what you are describing wouldn't be quantities. They would be states.

But more importantly, you missed this query:

"...lets for a moment remove all human observers. Now name something that is "false" without a human observer."

lixluke:

What if I see that some f'wit has drawn a triangle (with 28 degrees between 2 sides), but not on a flat surface?? How many degrees are in a triangle drawn on the side of a balloon? Or what happens to 28 degrees, if I screw up the piece of paper you drew it on?

And how exactly is certainty not connected to belief? Holy crap, this is some misguided bs.
certainty has no relevance .. it is irrelevant to the scope of one's belief.Bullshit, it's completely relevant. Absolutely relevant.
Nothing would be relevant if you did not have some idea of it (not 100% knowledge, however, since there IS NO SUCH THING)

If instead of me saying: "I don't know", I said: "I'm not that sure". You might think "what does 'that' mean?, is it describing a level of uncertainty perhaps?"

How much do I 'know' about something if I say that? Nothing at all??

One more little thing: how come "certainty has no relevance because it is irrelevant to the scope of one's belief"??
Are you certain this is the case, and are you also sure (which means you're certain) that the scope of your belief has no relevance to this certainty??

If so, you must have quite a unique brain.

I already stated clearly that a claim of knowledge is a belief. Acutal knowledge is a belief that is true. 0-99% certainty has nothing to do with it. Either way, when somebody states "I don't know", it is does not mean less than 100% certainty, it means o% certainty. Eitherway, certainty has no relevance because it is irrelevant to the scope of one's belief..

I'm sorry but it is absolute gibberish.

lixluke:

What if I see that some f'wit has drawn a triangle (with 28 degrees between 2 sides), but not on a flat surface?? How many degrees are in a triangle drawn on the side of a balloon? Or what happens to 28 degrees, if I screw up the piece of paper you drew it on?

And how exactly is certainty not connected to belief? Holy crap, this is some misguided bs.
Bullshit, it's completely relevant. Absolutely relevant.
Nothing would be relevant if you did not have some idea of it (not 100% knowledge, however, since there IS NO SUCH THING)

If instead of me saying: "I don't know", I said: "I'm not that sure". You might think "what does 'that' mean?, is it describing a level of uncertainty perhaps?"

How much do I 'know' about something if I say that? Nothing at all??

One more little thing: how come "certainty has no relevance because it is irrelevant to the scope of one's belief"??
Are you certain this is the case, and are you also sure (which means you're certain) that the scope of your belief has no relevance to this certainty??

If so, you must have quite a unique brain.
Choosing to cavile based on nonesense is copletely disregarding the point.
I already explained exactly what a belief was and how knowledge works.
Certainty is irrelevant: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2095587&postcount=44




You did? Mind pointing out the post? It's entirely possible I missed it. At the same time what you are describing wouldn't be quantities. They would be states.

But more importantly, you missed this query:

"...lets for a moment remove all human observers. Now name something that is "false" without a human observer."
I don't have to. Everything that is false with any human observer is false without it. The earth is flat.

Everything that is false with any human observer is false without it.
You seem quite sure about this - but your certainty isn't relevant to any 'scope' right?
If an observer sees that 'the sun is in the sky' is false, because it's dark, then goes and sits inside a cave, is the fact 'the sun is in the sky' still false. i.e. it's not a fact?
What about 12 hours after the observer has gone into the cave? What about eclipses of the sun?

The earth is flat.Nope, but your head is.
The earth is flat the same way the moon is a straight line.

Since certainty is irrelevant, everything you've posted must be irrelevant too, unless of course, you're sure it's all true - but you can't be sure because that has nothing to do with it.
So no-one can be sure that you've said a single coherent thing (I personally reserve judgement). You can't say anything with any certainty, since that isn't relevant, is it? How can you possibly know that post is 'exactly' what you say it is? That can't be a certainty.

You do not know what irrelevant means. Everything you are saying regarding certainty is irrelevant to my claim that certainty is irrelevant to definitions of knowledge and belief.

Your example of observer sitting in a dark cave is an incorrect demonstration of any senario of true/false.

certainty is irrelevant to definitions of knowledge and belief.
That's a bit strange, you seem to be certain about this; how can you be, when "certainty is irrelevant"??

How do you get around that claim you're making, and still claim anything at all?

How can you be certain the earth is flat, for instance; or form any belief about it, as you did in that previous post?
This is impossible, according to your paradigm.

That's a bit strange, you seem to be certain about this; how can you be, when "certainty is irrelevant"??

How do you get around that claim you're making, and still claim anything at all?

How can you be certain the earth is flat, for instance; or form any belief about it, as you did in that previous post?
This is impossible, according to your paradigm.
Because you are taking everything I am saying, and claiming I am saying something completely different. Somebody told me to give an example. I gave great example. It is pointless to disinterpret what I am saying, and then commenting on that disinterpretation.

What I have said so far is not that complicated. There is productivity in debating something that is given.

In terms of the relevance of certainty, you do not know the difference between particulars and universals.

So if something is "given", it can be debated...?
I guess so, but then the debaters of a "given" would need to give a stuff, as well.

How would you explain (with any sort of certainty) that certainty has nothing to do with relevance. You have, if you look at what you've posted, said this very thing several times - how sure are you that it's remotely true?
You think it's a "universal", or is it "particular", or, can't you be certain, so no point in saying anything?

P.S. I would say you don't know the difference between logic and complete rubbish.
But of course, I can't be sure.

If it is given that X is true in actuality, my claim of knowledge is correct. While my "claim of knowledge" is nothing more than a "conclusion based on the parameters of my understanding", it is also "actual knowledge" because X is true in actuality.

If it is given that X is not true in actuality, my claim of knowledge is incorrect. While my "claim of knowledge" is nothing more than a "conclusion based on the parameters of my understanding", it is nonetheless a "misconception" because X is not true in actuality.How do you determine what is true or not true "in actuality" - given that all experience of evidence is subjective (i.e. through the senses and subject to interpretation)... do you work on consensus (i.e. if enough people accept it as true then it is true in actuality)?
Unfortunately to do so is a logical fallacy (appeal to consensus).

If not by consensus, HOW do you identify what is true in actuality and what is not true?

The simple answer is, that while objective truth might exist... there is no way at all to actually prove something to be objectively true other than in the abstract world of mathematics (e.g. mathematical proofs).

And thus your entire argument seems pointless - unless you can explain how to determine the objective truth of a subjective claim?
And if you can do that, then surely you should be able to identify all objective truths?

So does God exist or not? I've always wanted to know that.

So if something is "given", it can be debated...?
I guess so, but then the debaters of a "given" would need to give a stuff, as well.

How would you explain (with any sort of certainty) that certainty has nothing to do with relevance. You have, if you look at what you've posted, said this very thing several times - how sure are you that it's remotely true?
You think it's a "universal", or is it "particular", or, can't you be certain, so no point in saying anything?

P.S. I would say you don't know the difference between logic and complete rubbish.
But of course, I can't be sure.
Because you are not discussing certainty as it pertains to what was mentioned about certainty. Thus, your comments about certainty are irrelevant.


How do you determine what is true or not true "in actuality" - given that all experience of evidence is subjective (i.e. through the senses and subject to interpretation)... do you work on consensus (i.e. if enough people accept it as true then it is true in actuality)?
Unfortunately to do so is a logical fallacy (appeal to consensus).

If not by consensus, HOW do you identify what is true in actuality and what is not true?

The simple answer is, that while objective truth might exist... there is no way at all to actually prove something to be objectively true other than in the abstract world of mathematics (e.g. mathematical proofs).

And thus your entire argument seems pointless - unless you can explain how to determine the objective truth of a subjective claim?
And if you can do that, then surely you should be able to identify all objective truths?

So does God exist or not? I've always wanted to know that.
I most definitely do not work on consensus. Consensus is irrelevant in EVERY case of coming to a conclusion of what is true or false.

Your question about how to come to a conclusion on what is true or false has been covered. There are many ways various people come to conclusions about a particular matter. There are many method anybody can use to come to a conclusion. Some people use consensus as a method to obtaining truth. I consider truth based on consensus a logical fallacy.

Mathematics is not the only way to prove something. And proving something to somebody is linguistically not necessarily the same thing as arriving to a conclusion about something. Language and use get in the way of people's ability to understand truth, logic, knowledge, and how it works.

As is stated, any great or not so great method one uses to arrive at a conclusion is not relevant. The only thing that is relevant in any situation is whether or not the individual's conclusion of truth in actuality is true in actuality.


Regardless of method or evidence or proof. Whether somebody used mathematics, logic, a dream, or they pulled it out of their rectum, the point is they arrived at a conclusion. I arrive to the conclusion that X is true.

Regardless of method, and without debate of what is the best method, any conclusion people arrive at are claims of truth in actuality. When somebody says they believe/know that X is true, they are essentially claiming that in actuality, X is true. Therefore, they claim to have knowledge that X is definitely true. For example, I have arrived at the conclusion that the world is round. I concluded that it is true that the world is round, and I say that I know the world is round. Any belief that is true in actuality is knowledge. Therefore, anything that I conclude to be true in actuality, I will consider my knowledge. Thus, to my knowledge, the world is round. I make the claim that I know that it is true the world is definitely round.

Whatever method I used to determine/arrive at the conclusion that this is true, the point is that anything I arrive at is obviously based on the parameters of my all that I involuntarily consider to be true. "Determine" is another word that can unintentionally throw connotaions into distorting people's understanding of logic. People don't determine/decide truth in the sense that they create the truth. They determine/decide truth in the sense that they aquired an understanding of something that they consider to be true.

If I conclude "X is true", and tell people that X is true, I am saying that X is true in objective actuality in every sense of complete truth. I also claim to know X is true.

If there is a matter that I have not arrived at a conclusion to, I simply state that I don't know. I don't know what color shirt my friend in New York is wearing.

Degree of certainty is then linguistically misinterpreted to fall under "I don't know". Somebody that "doesn't know" at any degree of certainty/uncertainty simply has not arrived at a conclusion of truth. While one who has arrived at a conclusion of truth that is incorrect literally "doesn't have the knowledge", this is not what "I don't know" linguistically refers to. I don't know refers to everything one has not arrived to a conclusion of truth about. Belief refers to everything one has arrived to a conclusion of truth about.

What are you talking about? One can come to conclusions of what is true in actuality.
But you cannot determine its truth, according to you, via evidence.

A believes x and is correct because x is true in reality.

However we cannot prove x is true by using evidence, according to you.

So A is correct but we have no way of knowing it.

Take a breath. Don't assume I am stupid. Consider the possibility that you have not worded your answers the best way AND that we might even agree.

I don't have to. Everything that is false with any human observer is false without it. The earth is flat.

The assrtion the "earth is flat" requires a human to exist. What I am asking for is an example of something that is false completely independent of human existence. In other words show me something in reality that is false.

I most definitely do not work on consensus. Consensus is irrelevant in EVERY case of coming to a conclusion of what is true or false.

Your question about how to come to a conclusion on what is true or false has been covered.I'm not asking how you come to a conclusion / claim of truth, but how you know that the conclusion / claim of truth is an actual truth - i.e. how do you determine that the claim of truth is actual knowledge, as you would put it?

I already know there are many ways to reach conclusions: logical, rational, irrational, fallacious or otherwise.

My question, which you have yet to provide an answer for, is how do you determine what is "actual knowledge" and what is not?

Please provide an example of "actual knowledge" - and then please prove that it is "actual knowledge" - which surely you must be able to do if it is an objective truth / "actual knowledge"?
I'm going to claim that you can not prove (not merely claim, but prove) anything as "actual knowledge" - any more than you can prove that you are not merely a brain in a jar (a la "Matrix" / solipsism) where nothing is real.

And unless you can show that "actual knowledge" is visible / attainable / provable then your whole argument appears irrelevant.

I'm not asking how you come to a conclusion / claim of truth, but how you know that the conclusion / claim of truth is an actual truth - i.e. how do you determine that the claim of truth is actual knowledge, as you would put it?


yes, this is the problem I have with the OP. I see we are working in parallel. If you don't mind I am going to word it my way to you.

It seemed like he was saying

knowledge was belief that was true in actuality.

then that evidence does not determine whether it is true in reality, but only whether it is actually true.

So far this is OK. I mean, in a sense it is a fussy empirical stance. We can only weigh the evidence and say what seems most likely, have a theory, and so on. The word knowledge becomes, in practicality, useless, but I can see this as a valid philosophical stance.

But then when I point out that we therefore can never say that something is, in actuality, true, he denies this.

I keep asking him then, how do we determine if something is true, in actuality, and he does not seem to respond directly.

Are you having a similar problem?

But you cannot determine its truth, according to you, via evidence.

A believes x and is correct because x is true in reality.

However we , according to you.

So A is correct but we have no way of knowing it.

Take a breath. Don't assume I am stupid. Consider the possibility that you have not worded your answers the best way AND that we might even agree.
I never said any of this.
Since when does saying people use various methods to arrive at a conclusion mean "cannot prove x is true by using evidence"?

Again, truth is does not depend on evidence. Evidence depends on truth. Evidence is only material that allows people to arrive at a conclusion that something is true. Anything can be considered evidence. Anybody can consider a dream to be evidence. People illogically consider consensus to be evidence.

Whether a person used logic, evidence, or had a dream to arrive at a conclusion, it does not matter. The method they arrived at a conclusion has nothing to do with whether or not the conclusion is correct or incorrect. Somebody has a dream that the earth goes around the sun. He now believes that the earth revolves around the sun is true. Because it is true that the earth revolves around the sun, this individual has knowledge.

If somebody wants to claim that we are wrong, and the sun revolves around the eath, that is fine. That person is claiming that we don't have knowledge, but a "misconcpetion". If anything compells us to change to the opposite belief that the "earth revolving sround the sun" is false", it is a "realization".

Do not claim that I said you cannot use evidence to arrive at a conclusion. I claimed that there are various methods you can use to arrive to a conclusion that something is true. Evidence is one of them. There are various methods you can use to prove to others that your conclusion is true. I am simply claiming that evidence itself does not MAKE something true. Evidence cannot and does not create truth. Evidence is only material used to support a claim.


I'm not asking how you come to a conclusion / claim of truth, but how you know that the conclusion / claim of truth is an actual truth - i.e. how do you determine that the claim of truth is actual knowledge, as you would put it?

I already know there are many ways to reach conclusions: logical, rational, irrational, fallacious or otherwise.

My question, which you have yet to provide an answer for, is how do you determine what is "actual knowledge" and what is not?

Please provide an example of "actual knowledge" - and then please prove that it is "actual knowledge" - which surely you must be able to do if it is an objective truth / "actual knowledge"?
I'm going to claim that you can not prove (not merely claim, but prove) anything as "actual knowledge" - any more than you can prove that you are not merely a brain in a jar (a la "Matrix" / solipsism) where nothing is real.

And unless you can show that "actual knowledge" is visible / attainable / provable then your whole argument appears irrelevant.
One cannot show you personally that somethin is actual knowledge. Therefore it is not actual knowledge. FALLACY.

I already stated that people use various methods of arriving at what they beleive to be truth. The method they used to arrive to a conclusion is irrelevant to whether or not their conclusion is true. It is not a question of how they know. It is a question of whether they know or not.

As for consensus, many people rely on it to come to a conclusion. I consider consensus complete garbage. Consensus does not prove truth and consensus is not relevant to truth. Consensus cannot be used within the parameters of logic to arrive or prove truth.


The assrtion the "earth is flat" requires a human to exist. What I am asking for is an example of something that is false completely independent of human existence. In other words show me something in reality that is false.
I never said anything about humans to exist to make an assertion. I said "the earth is flat" is false whether there is anybody to make the assertion or not.

lixluke appears to believe that a "conclusion" is some kind of absolute. This is, of course, absolute bullshit.
A conclusion is a guess, an approximation, absolute 'truth' is non-existent. Absolutely nothing is "absolutely true", for the simple reason that "truth" is a product of human minds, which are also 'approximations of reality'.
Our minds are only ever 'close' to actuality, never, in actuality, arriving at any absolutes; except that the absolute is always the approximate, for us animals.

A delusion (conclusion) which is that "a single mind can arrive somewhere, no matter how", is also based on an approximation (an erroneous conclusion, an illogical 'result' which doesn't match up with actuality).

P.S. he has correctly concluded, however, that I'm not 'discussing' certainty or relevance with lixluke (as you can see, he hasn't tried to answer a single question I've posted).
What I'm doing essentially is pointing out that he's applying logic illogically, to reach 'conclusions' that don't make sense in actuality. Since he wants to dance around, instead of responding with other than inane comments, I mean, I may as well call him an idiot.

lixluke appears to believe that a "conclusion" is some kind of absolute. This is, of course, absolute bullshit.
A conclusion is a guess, an approximation, absolute 'truth' is non-existent. Absolutely nothing is "absolutely true", for the simple reason that "truth" is a product of human minds, which are also 'approximations of reality'.
Our minds are only ever 'close' to actuality, never, in actuality, arriving at any absolutes; except that the absolute is always the approximate, for us animals.

A delusion (conclusion) which is that "a single mind can arrive somewhere, no matter how", is also based on an approximation (an erroneous conclusion, an illogical 'result' which doesn't match up with actuality).

P.S. he has correctly concluded, however, that I'm not 'discussing' certainty or relevance with lixluke (as you can see, he hasn't tried to answer a single question I've posted).
What I'm doing essentially is pointing out that he's applying logic illogically, to reach 'conclusions' that don't make sense in actuality. Since he wants to dance around, instead of responding with other than inane comments, I mean, I may as well call him an idiot.
If I don't answer questions it is because they are not relevant to the topic. I stated at the beginning of the thread that we are working only within the parameters of logic. Everything being discussed here is under the premisis that truth is absolute. Any discussion without that premesis does not belong here. It belongs in a thread about whether or not truth is absolute.

You are imposing a discussion that does not belong in this thread. Nothing I have discussed within this thread is applicable whatsoever whithout the premesis that truth is absolute. Thus, all that is being discussed here is only being discussed under the premesis that truth is absolute.

There is no such thing as an absolute, though. You have this back-to-front.

Your 'parameters of logic' don't seem to be able to stand up to logic??

And you have NOT discussed a single thing - all you've done the whole thread is stick to a fairly illogical and irrational stance.

Can you at least answer this: how do YOU apply "absolute logic"? And can you then reach a conclusion with it, that is "absolutely true"? Just a single example of something absolute, will do.

I think you can't, because there is no absolute anywhere, there never has been.

On the other hand, just keep repeating: "truth is absolute", over and over, and ignore everything that sounds different.

Because this is not a discussion about whether or not truth is absolute. This is a discussion based on the premesis that trruth is absolute. Its absurd to not ignore anything that does not abide by the premesis.

Truth is absolute is a premesis. It is not up for discussion in this thread. Any comment made about any point I have discussed is not relevant unless the comment abides by the premesis.

There is no such thing as an absolute, though. You have this back-to-front.

Your 'parameters of logic' don't seem to be able to stand up to logic??

And you have NOT discussed a single thing - all you've done the whole thread is stick to a fairly illogical and irrational stance.

Can you at least answer this: how do YOU apply "absolute logic"? And can you then reach a conclusion with it, that is "absolutely true"? Just a single example of something absolute, will do.

I think you can't, because there is no absolute anywhere, there never has been.

On the other hand, just keep repeating: "truth is absolute", over and over, and ignore everything that sounds different.


Well said.


Because this is not a discussion about whether or not truth is absolute. This is a discussion based on the premesis that trruth is absolute.
...

I disagree with your premiss.

Thus, I cannot partake in this 'discussion' (sic).

Any comment made about any point I have discussed is not relevant Well, obviously. I mean, nothing you've said seems to be relevant (to anything).

...unless the comment abides by the premesis.Rubbish.
You go ahead, and keep telling yourself that (try repeating it a few million times, say).

This is getting to be a comedy.

It's like arguing with one of those insane guys on the street corner speaking in jibberish. No wait, at least they say things now and then that make sense.

One cannot show you personally that somethin is actual knowledge. Therefore it is not actual knowledge. FALLACY.

I already stated that people use various methods of arriving at what they beleive to be truth. The method they used to arrive to a conclusion is irrelevant to whether or not their conclusion is true. It is not a question of how they know. It is a question of whether they know or not.But one can not determine if one "knows" or not until one can ascertain the objective reality.

For example, assume that the objective reality is that there really is a planet somewhere in the Universe made of cheese.
One person (X) claims it does not exist.
Another person (Y) claims it does.

According to you, where all that is required for knowledge is for it to be true, Y has knowledge of this planet made of cheese, and X does not. Now then, until this planet of cheese is actually spotted, HOW DOES X OR Y KNOW IF WHAT THEY ARE CLAIMING IS KNOWLEDGE OR NOT???

THAT is the question I am asking, yet you fail to understand this... reverting back to something that I am not even asking about.

According to you, one of them (X or Y) has knowledge and the other doesn't.

Now - what if I said that both X and Y merely rolled a die to see what claim they made... are you still saying that one of them has KNOWLEDGE???
Absurdity.

The point is twofold:
1. Unless you can determine what is ACTUALLY TRUE or not, you can have no knowlegde of it.
2. Even if a claim/belief is known to be true by one person, someone else merely guessing at the same claim does NOT HAVE KNOWLEDGE unless they, too, can JUSTIFY that claim. They themselves have to be able to justify why they make the claim... and that justification must be able to pass logical scrutiny. So justification such as "I flipped a coin, it landed heads, so I believed it" is not sufficient to warrant that claim / belief as knowledge.

And this is just using a 2,000 year-old concept of what is "knowledge" (a justified true belief), not to mention the various refinements in more recent years.

But your very concept of knowledge merely being an actual truth is ludicrous, absurd and ultimately worthless.

yes, this is the problem I have with the OP. I see we are working in parallel. If you don't mind I am going to word it my way to you.

It seemed like he was saying

knowledge was belief that was true in actuality.

then that evidence does not determine whether it is true in reality, but only whether it is actually true.

So far this is OK. I mean, in a sense it is a fussy empirical stance. We can only weigh the evidence and say what seems most likely, have a theory, and so on. The word knowledge becomes, in practicality, useless, but I can see this as a valid philosophical stance.

But then when I point out that we therefore can never say that something is, in actuality, true, he denies this.

I keep asking him then, how do we determine if something is true, in actuality, and he does not seem to respond directly.

Are you having a similar problem?Yes.
My tack differs slightly, trying not to get wound up in evidence per se, as it is quite possible according to his understanding of knowldge to arrive at it without evidence at all... just by merely making a claim that happens to be objectively true.

And then the question really does become one of how one determines what is objectively true or not.

In order to do that one MUST surely have evidence and, aside from abstracts such as mathematics, it is seemingly impossible to prove an absolute truth, as others have said (or at least I am not aware of any absolute truths that have been proven).

But that aside, even if we were able to determine absolute truth, my point to him is that the person making the guess and using no evidence has no knowledge, even if the claim is objectively true.
We arrive at knowledge through justifying (logically / rationally) our claims.

For example, if we take the advancement of science... it was knowledge that the smallest building blocks were the proton, neutron etc - and the claims made of this were justified... and hence, on the assumption that this was the objective truth, those making the claims and justifying them could be said to have knowledge of that subject. Someone making a "guess" could be said to NOT have knowledge. (To me, the concept of needing to justify a claim in order to be said to have knowledge is so bafflingly simple that I am continually amazed that lixluke ignores it).

It then turns out that the objective truth is somewhat different, and it can now be said that those people did not have "knowledge" - as their claims might have been justified but were not true (objectively). But we can say that they had knowledge "up to a point" or some such qualification of the term.

And now we think it is the quark, or something smaller... and then it will be something smaller still... possibly.
And that's the remaining point that lixluke can't seem to grasp... how we determine what is absolute truth (in anything other than abstract mathematics etc).

And unless we can, "knowledge" as defined, as referring to an absolute truth, is a useless word in practice, unless qualified.

But one can not determine if one "knows" or not until one can ascertain the objective reality.

For example, assume that the objective reality is that there really is a planet somewhere in the Universe made of cheese.
One person (X) claims it does not exist.
Another person (Y) claims it does.

According to you, where all that is required for knowledge is for it to be true, Y has knowledge of this planet made of cheese, and X does not. Now then, until this planet of cheese is actually spotted, HOW DOES X OR Y KNOW IF WHAT THEY ARE CLAIMING IS KNOWLEDGE OR NOT???
Both of them are claiming to know. X cliams to know the planet exists. Perhaps he actually flew a spacehip there. Perhaps he rolled some dice. Y is claiming to know the planet does not exist. Obviously, Y is wrong.
X has knowledge, and Y has misconception. Whatever method they used for arriving at their conclusion is not relevant to whether or not they are correct.
I know that planet earth exists. Method of determining it is irrelevant to whether or not I know it exists. Thus, I have knowledge that earth exists.

lol

Comedy

Yes.
My tack differs slightly, trying not to get wound up in evidence per se, as it is quite possible according to his understanding of knowldge to arrive at it without evidence at all... just by merely making a claim that happens to be objectively true.

And then the question really does become one of how one determines what is objectively true or not.

In order to do that one MUST surely have evidence and, aside from abstracts such as mathematics, it is seemingly impossible to prove an absolute truth, as others have said (or at least I am not aware of any absolute truths that have been proven).

But that aside, even if we were able to determine absolute truth, my point to him is that the person making the guess and using no evidence has no knowledge, even if the claim is objectively true.
We arrive at knowledge through justifying (logically / rationally) our claims.

For example, if we take the advancement of science... it was knowledge that the smallest building blocks were the proton, neutron etc - and the claims made of this were justified... and hence, on the assumption that this was the objective truth, those making the claims and justifying them could be said to have knowledge of that subject. Someone making a "guess" could be said to NOT have knowledge. (To me, the concept of needing to justify a claim in order to be said to have knowledge is so bafflingly simple that I am continually amazed that lixluke ignores it).

It then turns out that the objective truth is somewhat different, and it can now be said that those people did not have "knowledge" - as their claims might have been justified but were not true (objectively). But we can say that they had knowledge "up to a point" or some such qualification of the term.

And now we think it is the quark, or something smaller... and then it will be something smaller still... possibly.
And that's the remaining point that lixluke can't seem to grasp... how we determine what is absolute truth (in anything other than abstract mathematics etc).

And unless we can, "knowledge" as defined, as referring to an absolute truth, is a useless word in practice, unless qualified.
Knowledge defined is a belief that corresponds to actual truth. Misconcpetion is belief that does not correspond to actual truth. Those scientists who made claims that did not correspond to actual truth never had knowledge. They had misconception.

Comedy

Of the best sort to boot.

One usually only gets to see this kind of delusional behaviour in the Religion forum.

Of the best sort to boot.

One usually only gets to see this kind of delusional behaviour in the Religion forum.

LOL

There are times I think that Lix is being this delusional on purpose just to mess with us. I really hope that is the case, I am actually worried about him.

Hasn't that bear caught him yet?
1111

I never said anything about humans to exist to make an assertion.

You did say that "true" and "false" exist independent of human observation which is why they are being removed from the equation.


I said "the earth is flat" is false whether there is anybody to make the assertion or not.

Lets assume there is nobody to make the assertion. In that case the very idea "the earth is flat" doesn't appear ot exist. What I am asking you for is to show me something in reality that is false. It cannot be a human idea. It has to exist independent of that.

You did say that "true" and "false" exist independent of human observation which is why they are being removed from the equation.



Lets assume there is nobody to make the assertion. In that case the very idea "the earth is flat" doesn't appear ot exist. What I am asking you for is to show me something in reality that is false. It cannot be a human idea. It has to exist independent of that.
Humans do not have to exist in order for the earth to be not flat. No human being on the planet needs to come up with the idea in order for the earth being flat to be false. It is false whether anybody is there to have the idea or not.

No human being on the planet needs to come up with the idea in order for the earth being flat to be false. It is false whether anybody is there to have the idea or not.False to who? Or in respect of what?
You can't remove the observer, dude. Observers are 'truthful', a conclusion is true or false because we say so.

False to who? Or in respect of what?
You can't remove the observer, dude. Observers are 'truthful', a conclusion is true or false because we say so.
Wrong. Things are true of false whether or not there are observers to say so.

Humans do not have to exist in order for the earth to be not flat. No human being on the planet needs to come up with the idea in order for the earth being flat to be false. It is false whether anybody is there to have the idea or not.

Humans DO have to exist for the very notion of the "Earth not being flat" to even exist. Without humans to conceptualize it, there is no notion on the table and therefore nothing to point at and say "that's false". For something to be false without humans in the picture there has to be a real external objective phenomena that exists yet is not true. That's what I am asking you to show.

Lix,

You could not write the words true and false if you were not here.

If your only point to all of this nonsense is that the earth and the universe would still be here without us, I agree. We have been working towards that end I'm afraid.

But we can't both be here and not be here.

You have answered every question differently and if we tied them altogether it would be one big knot.

You have contradicted yourself by the very fact that you haven't agreed with one response no matter how it is phrased.

So go ahead and say I am wrong, you can't help it.

Hmm

Truth does not depend on the perception of the observer.Truth is something that is true or false in actuality.Evidence is material used for obtaining/supporting to a conclusion.
Everything that in one's understanding is belief. Any conclusion one arrives to based on any form of evidence is a belief."Truth and belief (based on conclusions) are different things"
Any conclusion I arrive to is based on the extent of my understanding.Based on all the evidence, everybody has concluded that they have arrived at definite knowledge.
I can say I know X is true for a fact. I can say I believe X is true for a fact. It is the same thing.Everything I claim to know is what I involuntarily believe."Evidence is involuntary, belief is a conclusion"
Evidence is irrelevant to possession of knowledge. Knowledge is not based on evidence. It's based on truth.Any conclusion of truth anybody arrives at based on any form of evidence is that person's belief that the conclusion is true.."Knowledge is not based on evidence, conclusions are"
In the case of "1+1=2", I consider it to be true, not because it is commonly accepted as true, but because it is logically proven/evident to be true. (Although, the reason I consider it to be true is irrelevant.) The only thing that is relevant is whether or not what I believe corresponds to actual truth."Logic is truth, and doesn't need any reason - which is irrelevant. Only belief is relevant to logic, which corresponds to actuality"
X is true or false independent of any form of evidence/proof or common knowledge anybody can proclaim.Anything can be considered evidence or proof according to whatever standard you are using. I prefer logic. These methods allow us to come to conclusions about what is true or false."Evidence can be anything, but logic lets us come to conclusions; truth is independent of any evidence. Conclusions are based on evidence, though (remember?)"
You don't even have to refer to it as "belief". Belief is just a term that represents an idea."Belief is an idea. which is a conclusion, which is based on evidence; truth is different (but I can't explain how or why it is)"

Or something.

Both of them are claiming to know. X cliams to know the planet exists. Perhaps he actually flew a spacehip there. Perhaps he rolled some dice. Y is claiming to know the planet does not exist. Obviously, Y is wrong.
X has knowledge, and Y has misconception. Whatever method they used for arriving at their conclusion is not relevant to whether or not they are correct.
I know that planet earth exists. Method of determining it is irrelevant to whether or not I know it exists. Thus, I have knowledge that earth exists.You know planet earth exists because you can justify your claim. If you could not then you would be merely guessing and it would not be knowledge but merely a claim / belief.

Your concept of knowledge is flawed and ill-defined - and is leading you to poor conclusions.
You fail to support your definition / understanding of "knowledge" with any cited examples.
You fail to answer any questions put to you.

In all, lixluke... :wallbang:

Wrong. Something is not true because it can be justified. Justification is dependent on truth.

Humans DO have to exist for the very notion of the "Earth not being flat" to even exist. Without humans to conceptualize it, there is no notion on the table and therefore nothing to point at and say "that's false". For something to be false without humans in the picture there has to be a real external objective phenomena that exists yet is not true. That's what I am asking you to show.
Observer is not necessary in order to for something to be true or false. It is false whether there is an observer or not. No brain has to conceive it. It need not come into the mind of any being. It simply is false regardless.

-Something is not true/false because of observer.
-Something is true/false regardless of observer.


Lix,

You could not write the words true and false if you were not here.

Right. I couldn't. Irrelevant.

If your only point to all of this nonsense is that the earth and the universe would still be here without us, I agree. We have been working towards that end I'm afraid.

But we can't both be here and not be here.
Correct.


You have answered every question differently and if we tied them altogether it would be one big knot.

You have contradicted yourself by the very fact that you haven't agreed with one response no matter how it is phrased.

So go ahead and say I am wrong, you can't help it.
Wrong again. Just because you cannot grasp it, doesn't mean it is a knot. I am trying to explain it as clearly as possible.
1. It is not in question that truth exists independent of observation.
2. It is not in question that evidence does not make truth. Evidence is only material used to arrive at a conclusion.
3. Humans use evidence or logic as a method to arriving at a conclusion only for the purpose of discovering truth. Thus, humans can make conclusions of what is true in actuality or not. All conclusions, no matter what they are or what method was used, can only be correct or incorrect. You state a conclusion, and use whatever you can to show yourself and others that that conclusion is the truth. Your evidence, in whatever form it may be, is what you use to prove to yourself and others athat something is true. Everything you consider to be true, based on whatever method, is what you consider to be knowledge.

I can say I know X is true. I can say X is definitely true. No matter what I say, it is only based on my own scope of understanding of the world and how the world works. Not on consensus, and not on anything else.


Let's say the following:
X is everything that is true in actuality.
A is everything a person has concluded to be true. It is the scope of a person's understanding.
B is everything the person has not arrived at a conclusion on.
C is everything a person has concluded to be true, and is also true.
D is everything a person has concluded to be true, but not true.

In any matter whatsoever, any form of evidence, proof, or logic (no matter how great), exists only within the scope of A. Everything within te scope of A is a claim about X.
CASE#1: Say I conclude "Assertion-X is true, and here is the factual evidence (that consensus agrees with) to support it".
CASE#2: Say I conclude "Assertion-X is true because I dreamed it was true.

The reason or method for arriving to a conclusion doesn't make something true. In either case, they both fall under A, and are both conclusions about X. In both cases, I understand them as C. Both cases are different methods I used to arrive at a conclusion.

Method of arriving to a conclusion is not what knowledge is based on.
No matter what, I or we as a group have determined it to be true.
No matter what, I or we as a group consider it knowledge because we have determined it to be true.
No matter what, our determination is not what "makes" it true in actuality.
No matter what, our determination is limited to our understanding of the world around us.
This goes for any statement of truth no matter what method used to arrive at the conclusion.

(but I can't explain how or why it is)
I sure as hell can. It's very easy and obvious. It is clear as day, but it requires very logical thought.
True and false exist independently of observation. Observers can only make conclusions about what is true and what is false. They can never influence what is true and what is false. Thus, it is up to the observer to use the best methods they can possibly use to come to most accurate conclusions about what is true or false. Is this difficult for anybody to understand?

Lix,

I asked.

“ If your only point to all of this nonsense is that the earth and the universe would still be here without us, I agree. We have been working towards that end I'm afraid.

But we can't both be here and not be here. ”

Your response was.

"Correct".


You have stated that you are clearly talking about what the truth is with or without us.

However, since there are many truths that only apply since we are here, if we want to talk about X as all truths then we need to include all of us because we exist, do you have any doubt that we exist ?

If no, then ok lets move on.

You said,

""Let's say the following:
X is everything that is true in actuality.
A is everything a person has concluded to be true. It is the scope of a person's understanding.
B is everything the person has not arrived at a conclusion on.
C is everything a person has concluded to be true, and is also true.
D is everything a person has concluded to be true, but not true."

I can accept this. No problem. But then.

"In any matter whatsoever, any form of evidence, proof, or logic (no matter how great), exists only within the scope of A. Everything within te scope of A is a claim about X."

Wrong. This is where the hang up is. Do you state " I know " when you don't. Since most people believe that they don't have ALL the answers, they are not claiming to know X when they only know A, using your guideline. That is a major leap and it is not valid.

The very fact that we learn new things all the time invalidates that claim. There is no way to know X. However, we are trying to learn as much about X and will continue to do so forever.

But better sentence structure and wording at least it is comprehendible.

What are you talking about? You do not state "I know" when you don't. Anything a person does considers unknown falls under B.

A is not a claim of knowing all X. X is everything that is true. A is everything one has concluded to be true. B is everything that one has not arrived at a conclusion on. Anything an claims to know falls within A. While everything that an individual claims to fall outside of their knowledge falls within B.

"Everything within the scope of A is a claim about X." - Perhaps I worded it wrong. A is not about all truth as a whole, but a claim about a particular matter to be true in actuality. Person is not claiming to know everything period. X is everything that is true. A is the sum of everything that a person considers to be true. B is any portion of X that an individual has not formed a conclusion about.

Say there is a list of articles. Some of them are true, and some of them are not. You use whatever method to the best of your abiltiy to decide which ones you feel is true, and which ones are false. Some of them, you find are true, others you might dismiss as false, while others yet, you simply have not arrived at a conclusion on.

Is there an instructor to tell you if you are wrong or right? No. Do other people decide whether you are wrong or right? No. Does evidence tell you whether you are wrong or right? No. Every human, no matter what method they used makes decisions on what is true and false. They use evidence or whatever method they can to get the best answer that they consider to be the definite truth. When one has not arrived at a conclusion, about any item, one simple states that he does not know. Otherwise, he states what is true, and what is false. He discusses it with his peers. They use evidence. They may agree. They may disagree. They may have discussion on the matter for the purpose at arriving at the truth. No matter what, there is no instructor to tell you that you are wrong or right. Does this mean you do not know whether or not you are wrong or right? Of course not. Anything an individual arrives at a conclusion about is somethng they consider to be true. They consider their conclusion to be right whether or not there is some instructor to let him know.

Is there an instructor to tell you if you are wrong or right? No. Wrong, the instructor is 'every other observer you have met or talked to', i.e. the group.
Do other people decide whether you are wrong or right? No.Wrong again. Other people (the group) absolutely decide this.
Does evidence tell you whether you are wrong or right? No.And wrong again. Evidence is what you base conclusions on, as you have said. And you repeat this in the following:
Every human, no matter what method they used makes decisions on what is true and false. They use evidence or whatever method they can to get the best answer that they consider to be the definite truth.This is what you would call 'a conclusion'?
When one has not arrived at a conclusion, about any item, one simple states that he does not know.What if, instead, he says "I'm still not certain", is that a conclusion?
Otherwise, he states what is true, and what is false. He discusses it with his peers. They use evidence. They may agree. They may disagree. They may have discussion on the matter for the purpose at arriving at the truth. The group is there, after all then? To compare one's conclusions (based on evidence)?
No matter what, there is no instructor to tell y