Wrong. What contradiction? I have not changed anything. First you misinterpret what I am saying. Then you claim that false interpretation is a contradiction. Nothing I stated from the beginning of this thread is a contradiction. Everything I have stated is a clear cut logical explanation of how knowledge works. No contradictions, and no variation. This is how knowledge works in all cases. All you do is misinterpret over and over. Then state over and over that I made a contradiction. Yet you refuse to point it out. Who cares? I stated that evidence has no relevance to wheter or not an individual arrived at a conclusion. Truth is absolute. That is a premesis of everyting being discussed.
You're the one that is contradicting yourself. You agree that truth exists independently of observation and that knowledge is a belief that is true. Yet you claim that an individual claiming to know something based on evidence automatically makes that person correct just because he concluded himself to be. That is total garbage. It is a total contradiction.
Name a single absolutely true thing though. Something is true or it isn't, in which conclusion evidence has every relevance. Evidence is 'true' evidence, or it isn't, it's uncertain or false. Unfortunately there is only a possibility that the true evidence is truly evidence, and the false evidence truly is not. You seem to skip past the fact that there wouldn't be any evidence, unless someone decided there is. That may be true, but really only in the sense that evidence truly does exist. This is always the case, absolutely, unless you are brain-dead.
I never said that something is true just because someone says it is or verified it. This is a misunderstanding on your part. To clarify... Knowledge is a justified TRUE belief - i.e. a belief that is TRUE in actuality (we both agree on this criteria) PLUS the person claiming to know it is true has to be able to justify why they think it is true. Only then can the person be said to have knowledge as opposed to a mere belief about something. If you make a guess about something, even if it that guess / belief is TRUE in actuality, if you can not justify it (i.e. provide rational reasoning for your belief) then you did not have knowledge of that thing. Period. You therefore can not have knowledge about anything that will happen in the future if there is a chance it will not happen, for example. Really not sure it can be expressed much easier. If you continue to not include the need for the belief to be JUSTIFIED as well as true in actuality then you will continue to get it wrong.
Who cares? What does this have to do with the statement that evidence has nothing to do with whether or not somebody arrived at a conclusion? Person arrives at conclusion X. Nothing more and nothing less. Does that person have evidence? Maybe. Maybe not. Irrelevant. Whether a person has evidence or not does not change the fact that the person arrived at conclusion X. Evidence has no relevance to whether or not the person arrived at conclusion X. Where in this entire thread did I ever mention anything about justification? Nobody has to justify anything in order to have knowledge of anything. You are misquoting my statement. You are making ancient, and completely incorrect claims about knowledge. Knowledge is nothing more than a belief that is true. Nobody has to justify it to anybody. In order to have knowledge, all the preson needs is a conclusion that something is true that is correct.
Lix, You have one twisted mind. I have showed you several times where you have contradicted yourself. You just want to argue even when points are agreed upon. You then start a new rant and in doing so end up stating things that are a contradiciton to a previous statement which I had agreed upon. It is really odd. So one last time. Please for the love of god. Is this acceptable to you or not ? In your words and (mine) 1. Observer arrives at conclusion about a matter. 2. That conclusion might be correct. (that conclusion is correct) 3. That conclusion might be incorrect. (that conclusion is incorrect) 1- BELIEF 2 - KNOWLEDGE 3 - MISCONCEPTION Let me know.
No you have not. I have not contradicted myself once in this entire thread. It is not a contradiction if you do not even interpret what the other person is saying correctly. You cannot misinterpret what somebody is saying, and then make comments about something you didn't even interpret correctly. Everything I stated here is clear cut. It completely follows logic. You are the one that is contradicting yourself by claiming that knowledge is knwoledge because you say it is. You are the one claiming that there is an apple in your hand because you say it is. Circular. All you do is claim I say stuff that I never said.
Let's say it doesn't. In that case nothing anyone has posted in this thread, or in fact anything on the internet, or in any book, or in your mind has anything to do with how you arrived at a conclusion. Or it does have something to do with it, in which case I might conclude that I've stated this enough already, for one thing. How do you start with evidence to reach a conclusion, and get to a conclusion that had nothing to do with the evidence, do you know?
Lix, Here is the short list. "Somebody comes to the conclusion that something is true." "Somebody uses proof observation or evidence to prove it to be true". "Based on all the evidence, everybody has concluded that they have arrived at definite knowledge". "Evidence is irrelevant to possession of knowledge" "MISCONCPETION #1: Something is knowledge because evidence shows it to be true". "I never said that knowledge and belief were the same." "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." "I already stated clearly that a claim of knowledge is a belief" "When somebody says they believe/know that X is true" "Since when does saying people use various methods to arrive at a conclusion mean "cannot prove x is true by using evidence"? "Whatever method they used for arriving at their conclusion is not relevant to whether or not they are correct." "Evidence is only material that allows people to arrive at a conclusion that something is true." "Evidence is irrelevant to possession of knowledge" I only got to page 4 and have a headache. Take your contradicitons and shove them up your ass.
Do you not understand the difference between "how you arrived to a conclusion" and "if you arrived to a conclusion"? How you arrived has no effect on if you arrived. AS STATED: Evidence has no relevance to whether or not the person arrived at conclusion X. You are clearly not commenting on what is stated, but as usual imposing completely subjective preconceived notions in order to misinterpret what is being said. I state "who cares" because what you are saying is not a comment on what I said. All you people do is misinterpret what is being said instead of reading it for what it is. Over and over I have told you that is not what I am talking about. And over and over you state the same thing as if that is what I am talking about. Did I say?: "Evidence has no relevance how you arrived to a conclusion."
You list my statements, but do not show how they contradict. As usual. I have already stated clearly that you do not know how to interpret what is being said correctly. You misinterpret what I am saying. Then claim that it is a contradiciton. Then you never once show how it is a contradiction. NOT one of those statements contradict any other one. They are all facts about knowledge that I have been trying to explain to people who seem to not be able to read without impsing additional meaning to my statements. All you people do is either add meanings to a statement I make. Or you take a statement I make, and impose a completely different meaning from it. Any statement can mean anything. But there is only one intended meaning by the writer. THESE ARE MY STATEMENTS AS YOU QUOTED: "Somebody comes to the conclusion that something is true." "Somebody uses proof observation or evidence to prove it to be true". "Based on all the evidence, everybody has concluded that they have arrived at definite knowledge". "Evidence is irrelevant to possession of knowledge" There is no contradiction there. Do you not understand what I mean when I say over and over again that there is a difference between claim of possession of knowledge and actual possession of knowledge? How many times and in how many different ways do I have to state it before you interpret my statements correctly? Are you not aware after I told you a million times that you are not interpreting my statements correctly? YOU: "You are contradicting yourself." ME: "No I am not. You are misinterpreting. Then claiming that what you have interpreted is a contradiciton." YOU: "You are contradicting yourself." How can you tell me I am contradicting myself when you do not even correctly interpret what I am saying? There is no such thing as a proper discussion in which people misinterpret what other people are saying. You get nowhere.
Lix, I am interpreting your statements correctly, they speak for themselves. In the end you could not even bring yourself to agree to your own statements. Do you want to try again ? Is this acceptable to you or not ? In your words and (mine) 1. Observer arrives at conclusion about a matter. 2. That conclusion might be correct. (that conclusion is correct) 3. That conclusion might be incorrect. (that conclusion is incorrect) 1- BELIEF 2 - KNOWLEDGE 3 - MISCONCEPTION
Wrong. You have proven that you have misinterpreted my statements. That is not debatable. It is up to me to decide whether or not you interpreted my statements correctly. You cannot impose your own interpretations on other people's statemetns after they tell you that you did not interpret correctly. All discussions must have correct interpretation. If somebody makes a statement, and you misinterpret the intent of that person's statement, you cannot claim that your misinterpretation is correct. You cannot have a discussion by imposing intents on others. That is a one sided discussion. You are not commenting on what the other person is saying. You are commenting on what your own concotion which makes it one sided. Again, you did not interpret what I am saying correctly. You refuse to acknowledge the intent of the other person. Each person has to acknowledge the intent of the other person. Otherwise, there is no productive discussion. All you have been doing is going on and on for days arguing against things I am not even saying. Then I try to clarify what I am saying. And you simply refuse to acknowledge my claims of how you misinterpreted my statements.
Lix, "You refuse to acknowledge the intent of the other person" Well then put the intent of your statement into the statement. I am not a mind reader, if you can not write a statement that represents your position then don't expect anyone to understand the intent. I have my answer. You don't agree with yourself. Good day.
Things stated here might be stated very differently, but they are all completely factual. Everything on this list is completely true and acurate comments about how knowledge really works. There are no contradictions anywhere. If you claim that there is contradiction here, then you have no clue about what is being said. You cannot comprehend these simple facts. "Somebody comes to the conclusion that something is true." "Somebody uses proof observation or evidence to prove it to be true". "Based on all the evidence, everybody has concluded that they have arrived at definite knowledge". "Evidence is irrelevant to possession of knowledge" "MISCONCPETION #1: Something is knowledge because evidence shows it to be true". "I never said that knowledge and belief were the same." "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." "I already stated clearly that a claim of knowledge is a belief" "When somebody says they believe/know that X is true" "Since when does saying people use various methods to arrive at a conclusion mean "cannot prove x is true by using evidence"? "Whatever method they used for arriving at their conclusion is not relevant to whether or not they are correct." "Evidence is only material that allows people to arrive at a conclusion that something is true." "Evidence is irrelevant to possession of knowledge"
INTENT #1: A belief is a conclusion that something is true. That is what a belief is. Nothing more. Nothing less. If you conclude that you have an apple in your hand. You have a belief that there is an apple in your hand. INTENT #2: A belief by a person must by claimed as knowledge by the person. If you believe you have an apple in your hand, you must claim to have knowledge that an apple is in your hand. INTENT #3: A claim of truth does not make actual truth. A claim that it is true there is an apple in your hand does not make it true that there is an apple in your hand. INTENT #4: A claim of knowledge about something does not make it actual knowledge about something. A claim that you have knowledge that there is an apple in your hand does not mean that you have knowledge that there is an apple in your hand. INTENT #5: Something is not knowledge or truth because evidence "proves" it. Something that is true is true whether or not evidence proves it. The method you use to arrive ate/verify/determine/proove a conclusion is not what makes the conclusion true. It is not what makes a belief knowledge.
Lix, You make the claim that somebody uses evidence to prove it to be true, then claim evidence is irrelevant. Contradiction. You make the claim that you never stated knowledge and belief are the same, then proceed to say they are the same. Contradiction. Do you not see that ?
OK I have already explained clearly that these are not contradictions. You are incorrect. Somebody uses evidence to prove something as true. Evidence is irrelevant to whether or not something is true. It's as simple as that. There is no contradiction there. I never said knowledge and belief were the same. I said that statements of people all mean the same thing. Again, you misinterpret something I have explained explicitly over and over again. Statements all mean the same thing. "I have concluded X to be true". You are imposing your false interpretations on the matter, and then claim it is a contradiction. Especially after I repeated over and over that a statement one makes is completely different from a state of being.
