Is knowledge something you have...

[lixluke]

I am asking you how you decide. I am not asking 'how does one decide?'

Why? That's ad-hominem. Not that it's any different. If somebody makes a proposition, and I consider his proposition to be true, then I consider that person to possess knowledge that the proposition is true.

[Doreen]

Why? That's ad-hominem.

Because if one only speaks about things as if one is speaking about all contexts, it limits the conversation. Generally, by the way, ad hominem is a problem if one indicates that the argument is wrong because of (purported) qualities in the person. But a philosophical discussion can be aided by personalizing explorations without it being remotely that kind of fallacy. When Descartes imagined himself into a corner of doubt he was not committing the fallacy of ad hom.

Not that it's any different. If somebody makes a proposition, and I consider his proposition to be true, then I consider that person to possess knowledge that the proposition is true.

Even though they may not have the slightest idea what they are saying?

[iHaveNoIdea]

or something you do - or could do?

Does it reflect 'reality'?
or
Does it unravel like an instructions pamphlet?

How do you know someone knows something?

Examples are appreciated. Abstract to concrete, concrete to abstract. Let this be our mantra.

I always figured knowledge was something you earned. Like if you try something out then you gain knowledge about it or take a risk you learn knowledge about yourself and your boundaries or whatever. Whenever you try something out you learn about it and if you do it more than once you just learn more. Isn't it that simple? Like then you retain the knowledge?

[lixluke]

Even though they may not have the slightest idea what they are saying?

No. If somebody is possessed by monsters, and has no awareness of what is coming out of his mouth, there is no way to tell whether or not he considers anything he is saying to be true.

Because if one only speaks about things as if one is speaking about all contexts, it limits the conversation. Generally, by the way, ad hominem is a problem if one indicates that the argument is wrong because of (purported) qualities in the person. But a philosophical discussion can be aided by personalizing explorations without it being remotely that kind of fallacy. When Descartes imagined himself into a corner of doubt he was not committing the fallacy of ad hom.

Wrong. Ad-hominem derails the discussion. When discussing whether or not X is true, individual perspectives have no effect or relevance to discussion.

[Doreen]

No. If somebody is possessed by monsters, and has no awareness of what is coming out of his mouth, there is no way to tell whether or not he considers anything he is saying to be true.

I believe it was clear I meant the person did not understand what they were saying as opposed to not believing it. Further the strawman interpretation of what I was saying was unnecessary.

Let me give a couple of examples that might help here

1a) What is Kant’s categorical imperative?
b) How could you analyze a decision someone you know made in light of Kant’s CI?

2a) What is affirming the consequent of a conditional?
Where in the following text does the writer affirm the consequent of a conditional?

The a) questions may only get a sense of what the person believes is true and has memorized but does not really understand. The b) questions are much more likely to test for knowledge.

Wrong. Ad-hominem derails the discussion. When discussing whether or not X is true, individual perspectives have no effect or relevance to discussion.

This is quite incorrect. I have had many fruitful philosophical discussions that included individual perspectives, so for you to universalize is to be in error.

[lixluke]

I believe it was clear I meant the person did not understand what they were saying as opposed to not believing it. Further the strawman interpretation of what I was saying was unnecessary.

Let me give a couple of examples that might help here

1a) What is Kant’s categorical imperative?
b) How could you analyze a decision someone you know made in light of Kant’s CI?

2a) What is affirming the consequent of a conditional?
Where in the following text does the writer affirm the consequent of a conditional?

The a) questions may only get a sense of what the person believes is true and has memorized but does not really understand. The b) questions are much more likely to test for knowledge.

Fallacies within the text depend on their connotation.

What does Kant's CI have to do with this discussion? Kant's CI involves 3 ethical postulates. You can come to conclusions about the ethics behind anybody's actions based on logic alone.

This is quite incorrect. I have had many fruitful philosophical discussions that included individual perspectives, so for you to universalize is to be in error.

Examples 'individual or otherwise' can be used to clarify information. But you cannot use an individual as a basis for proving a point. What I do or what anybody does is irrelevant to the facts being presented.

[Sarkus]

Lixluke - given your "rules of knowledge"...

"I believe the next roll of my 6-sided die will land on 3."

Is this knowledge or misconception?
I am aware that I will claim it to be knowledge. But is it?

Please tell me before I roll the die.

[Sarkus]

I am not sure there is 1 philosophical level. But there is closer to one in science. Nevertheless I am skeptical most people, scientists included, have really looked at how they come to know various things and whether each path justifies the use of the term knowledge.
I understood that. My point here was that according to your definition of knowledge, it is quite hard for many (most probably) scientists to have knowledge outside their own fields or serious hobbies (in science).

I would concur.

I think, actually, you are incorrect. Theory is something that is very, very strongly supported by evidence. The Theory of Relativity, etc. As opposed to hypothesis.

Sure - but theories are there to fill in the gaps between observed points.
A theory holds when a new observed point fits the prediction, and we know a theory is weak / flawed / false when an observed point is outside the prediction.
A theory, therefore, is all about prediction of future observations - and as such can not be "known", the same way that you can not "know" if a coin will land on HEADS or TAILS before the toss.

I believe you answered Yes to the question of whether knowledge is a mirror. What is it a mirror of?

I did? I don't recall - and I'm sure I would have said "Eh?" Not sure I understand the question.

I am also interested in your definition of Belief. I am looking for something descriptive in a kind of ontological way.

Any claim of knowledge that isn't actually knowledge due to not being able to verify the truth value, whether the claim is true in actuality or not.

For example, "the next toss of my coin will land on HEADS." As far as I am concerned this can not be knowledge - unless it is a 2-headed coin. So it is a belief - as until the toss is completed it is not possible to verify the truth value.

It gets trickier with "the sun will rise tomorrow". This is based on tested theories, working models etc. Most would consider this to be knowledge, although I would say that the more accurate claim would be "assuming what we know still holds true, the sun will rise tomorrow". I.e. there are unspoken assumptions that we take for granted and probably never actually realise we are making them due to our familiarity with the language.
In language we rarely state the assumptions we are making. I am sure I have made many even in this post.

And this understanding of "belief" does seem to cover all shades / varieties - from belief in God, to an assessment of probability that you won't get hit crossing the road, to well-supported theories.

I was going to go further with my definition and say that any claim of knowledge that does not have the requisite justification for knowledge is also a belief, even for claims that are true in actuality. But I would need to think about this some more. I think it still holds, though.

Reading through this again, though, I guess this is circular reasoning.
Perhaps more accurately, and more succinctly, a belief is any claim of reality (past, present or future). It becomes knowledge if the belief is justified and true.

[lixluke]

I would concur.

Sure - but theories are there to fill in the gaps between observed points.
A theory holds when a new observed point fits the prediction, and we know a theory is weak / flawed / false when an observed point is outside the prediction.
A theory, therefore, is all about prediction of future observations - and as such can not be "known", the same way that you can not "know" if a coin will land on HEADS or TAILS before the toss.

I did? I don't recall - and I'm sure I would have said "Eh?" Not sure I understand the question.

Any claim of knowledge that isn't actually knowledge due to not being able to verify the truth value, whether the claim is true in actuality or not.

For example, "the next toss of my coin will land on HEADS." As far as I am concerned this can not be knowledge - unless it is a 2-headed coin. So it is a belief - as until the toss is completed it is not possible to verify the truth value.

It gets trickier with "the sun will rise tomorrow". This is based on tested theories, working models etc. Most would consider this to be knowledge, although I would say that the more accurate claim would be "assuming what we know still holds true, the sun will rise tomorrow". I.e. there are unspoken assumptions that we take for granted and probably never actually realise we are making them due to our familiarity with the language.
In language we rarely state the assumptions we are making. I am sure I have made many even in this post.

And this understanding of "belief" does seem to cover all shades / varieties - from belief in God, to an assessment of probability that you won't get hit crossing the road, to well-supported theories.

I was going to go further with my definition and say that any claim of knowledge that does not have the requisite justification for knowledge is also a belief, even for claims that are true in actuality. But I would need to think about this some more. I think it still holds, though.

Reading through this again, though, I guess this is circular reasoning.
Perhaps more accurately, and more succinctly, a belief is any claim of reality (past, present or future). It becomes knowledge if the belief is justified and true.

Incorrect. Justification is relative to the subject that is compelled to the belief. All beliefs have some form of justification (material that compelled the particular subject to the belief.) What one subject considers justification may not be considered justification by another subject.

When one says that something must be "justified" he is ALWAYS referring to a particular system of justification. There is no such thing as universal justification (material that will compel every subject to a belief). To claim that a proposition becomes knowledge if it is justified period cannot be valid. Either way, a belief is knowledge whether or not the subject even is aware of how he arrived at his conclusion. As long as the subject is in the state of belief regarding a proposition that is true, the subject possesses knowledge.

[lixluke]

Lixluke - given your "rules of knowledge"...

"I believe the next roll of my 6-sided die will land on 3."

Is this knowledge or misconception?

What are you talking about? It's already been stated many times exactly what is necessary in order for a belief to be knowledge or misconception.

[Sarkus]

To claim that a proposition becomes knowledge if it is justified period cannot be valid.

You are correct, but since noone has made that claim you are creating a strawman. The suggestion made, just in case you are interested in the reality of this discussion, is that justification is a requirement for knowledge - not the only one - but one nonetheless. The other is that the claim must be true.

Either way, a belief is knowledge whether or not the subject even is aware of how he arrived at his conclusion. As long as the subject is in the state of belief regarding a proposition that is true, the subject possesses knowledge.

So you keep saying.
Unforunately no-one agrees with you, and since you can't demonstrate the "truth in actuality" of what you claim, you are left merely with a belief that you are correct.

So I ask again - a simple question:
"I believe the next roll of my 6-sided die will land on 3."
Before I make the roll, is this claim knowledge or misconception?

What are you talking about? It's already been stated many times exactly what is necessary in order for a belief to be knowledge or misconception.

You have - and now I want you to apply what you have stated to the scenario above, please.
Humour me. It will help me clarify your position.

[lixluke]

You are correct, but since noone has made that claim you are creating a strawman. The suggestion made, just in case you are interested in the reality of this discussion, is that justification is a requirement for knowledge - not the only one - but one nonetheless. The other is that the claim must be true.

So you keep saying.
Unforunately no-one agrees with you, and since you can't demonstrate the "truth in actuality" of what you claim, you are left merely with a belief that you are correct.

So I ask again - a simple question:
"I believe the next roll of my 6-sided die will land on 3."
Before I make the roll, is this claim knowledge or misconception?

You have - and now I want you to apply what you have stated to the scenario above, please.
Humour me. It will help me clarify your position.

First of all, it has already proven that it is impossible for justification to have any effect on knowledge. Agree or not, that's a demonstrated fact. There is no strawman. You're asking a question that has been answered. Exactly what is necessary for your belief about the dice in order to be knowledge or misconception. Is that belief knowledge or misconception?

[sly1]

Not to sound like an abstract rehashed philosopher buuuuuuut it would seem true knowledge lies in admitting you know nothing...!?

If you think of almost every aspect of existance a person could "know" of it would seem we have never really figured anything out...we have ideas,theories,conclusions of our history and where we came from but i would find arrogance in claiming we KNOW for SURE where we came from.

We have ideas,theories,conclusions about our "possible" various futures but we don't KNOW where or what is in tomorrow.

We can say we understand the world today and have theories,ideas, conclusions of how and why it is the way it is and where it will lead us but we dont KNOW for sure.

A conclusion is just the point at which you get tired of thinking.

I would tend to think our IDEA of knowledge is the conclusion of highest probability within our understanding on any given subject. But for it to be 100% true knolwedge I think not.

[Sarkus]

First of all, it has already proven that it is impossible for justification to have any effect on knowledge. Agree or not, that's a demonstrated fact.

Lol!
Where is it demonstrated as a fact?
(Please note that you claiming it to be true is not demonstrating a fact.)

Furthermore, if you think that a random guess that happens to be true in actuality (not that you aware that it was when you made the guess) is knowledge then you are in a minority of one and thus perhaps this discussion is not for you.

There is no strawman.

There was - you argued against a claim that I had not made... i.e. you created a strawman.

You're asking a question that has been answered. Exactly what is necessary for your belief about the dice in order to be knowledge or misconception. Is that belief knowledge or misconception?

No, it has not been answered, which is why I am asking.
And please just humour me and answer the question. As I explained, it will help me more fully understand your position:
"I believe the next roll of my 6-sided die will land on 3."
Before I make the roll, is this claim knowledge or misconception?

[glaucon]

Possibly the latter one can be, possibly not. I mean you may know in your particular instance, but there would be instances when either 1) it could not be or 2) you and others are in error. As far as your birthdate, of course errors can be made. We can find what is on your birth certificate, probably at least. But as I said, this could be in error and so could the relevent memories.

No. Both can be [and are] verified.

And how does preparedness play into this?

That belief directs my present behaviour. For example, it is due to that belief that I went to bed last night, shortly after posting.

So you would say language is not representing things.

No. I just said that it can.

And if it is not, given that you said, I believe, that yes, knowledge mirrors reality, may I conclude then that for you reality is experience?

Not quite sure what 'reality' has to do with the topic here but...
Yes, reality is experience.

Important note: your position is not a realist one. I am curious if Sarkus follows you here.

How is it not?

[glaucon]

So language can be truth. By itself?

Not quite.
A proposition that I consider to be knowledge doesn't' "contain" truth, nor is it truth, but it must be true. Very different things. You seem to be pushing for some sort of acknowledgment of an abstract objective notion of 'truth' [or, 'real'], and this is simply not the case [at least with respect to "knowledge"]. Also, see my next comment below.

See contain hints at some process - note: I am not saying contain is correct.

Alas, "contains" also alludes to possession, which is ontologically invalid.
Moreover, the existential assignation of "true" to a proposition is clearly indicative of a process [by its very nature, to arrive at such a logical conclusion, one must 'go through' the process..].

I suppose the point is that language is NOT special. It is not a container. It is a phenomenon - each instance of it - and these lead to experiences. Sometimes more consciously noted than other times.

I'll agree to all of that.
However, this begs the question: 'not special' compared to what exactly??

Or your misinterpretation of it.

Nope.
Try the link again. The entire point of the whole establishment of the Criterion, for the most part by the Positivist tradition, was to avoid solipsism: verification had to be public.

[glaucon]

Mod Hat;

First of all, it has already proven that it is impossible for justification to have any effect on knowledge.
...

No you have not.

lixluke,

General notice:

I must admit you've done particularly well in this thread with respect to your logic. That being said however, you have indeed made some errors: you toss out references to ad hominem's clearly not understanding what they are. As well, you are incorrect with respect to the justification component.

In any case, I must remind you that you are beholden to respond to the critiques of others here. Both Sarkus and Doreen have questioned you and your responses are generally dismissive and/or avoidant. Just because something seems to be true for you, does not mean that you do not need to explain yourself.

Again, I have to admit that I'm impressed with what you've posted in here for the most part, and while this is not an official Warning, if you continue to be so evasive and haughty in your replies, that might have to change.

[Doreen]

Fallacies within the text depend on their connotation.

This would need some fleshing out for me to understand.

What does Kant's CI have to do with this discussion?

I was giving two examples of knowledge areas: Kant's CI and a certain kind of fallacy. I wanted concrete examples to try to show why I felt your approach to ascertaining whether someone had knowledge was limited. For each example I gave a question that could elicit a memorized answer, which the answerer might understand to varying degrees or not at all. Then I followed this up with a question, in each case (the b questions), that I thought would make it clearer if the person actually had knowledge. To me knowledge is not simply having correct assertions about something.

Examples 'individual or otherwise' can be used to clarify information.

There you go. And helpig to clarify information is a very important part of philosophical discussions. I think concrete, specific situations can make all sorts of things clearer for a variety of reasons. If you would prefer not to speak about your own experience or use examples from your own life, that's fine.

[Doreen]

I would concur.

Great.

Sure - but theories are there to fill in the gaps between observed points.
A theory holds when a new observed point fits the prediction, and we know a theory is weak / flawed / false when an observed point is outside the prediction.
A theory, therefore, is all about prediction of future observations - and as such can not be "known", the same way that you can not "know" if a coin will land on HEADS or TAILS before the toss.

This would be true of most assertions, I would say. I was going to make an exception for assertions about the past, but even these are predictions about future findings (about the past).

I did? I don't recall - and I'm sure I would have said "Eh?" Not sure I understand the question.

I checked. Same metaphor, but not quite the same question.

Does knowledge reflect reality?

I am trying to get at the ontology of knowledge.

Often when people talk about knowledge they talk about reasoning, assertions, propositions, logic, phenomena, things, etc. I am hoping to get into the nuts and bolts of knowledge. What is it?

It gets trickier with "the sun will rise tomorrow". This is based on tested theories, working models etc. Most would consider this to be knowledge, although I would say that the more accurate claim would be "assuming what we know still holds true, the sun will rise tomorrow". I.e. there are unspoken assumptions that we take for granted and probably never actually realise we are making them due to our familiarity with the language.
In language we rarely state the assumptions we are making. I am sure I have made many even in this post.

Well, one area I hope to get into is the metaphorical basis of language, including our conceptions of minds, knowledge, reality and how these relate. Much of this is unconscious. Just to toss out a tidbit, it seems the part of our brain that handles a lot of this is the motor portion of the brain. We are bodies thinking, not transcendent minds.

Reading through this again, though, I guess this is circular reasoning.
Perhaps more accurately, and more succinctly, a belief is any claim of reality (past, present or future). It becomes knowledge if the belief is justified and true.

To me the problem with saying justified and true makes it seem like true is somethign we can determine by some process that does not require justification. But of course it does. So we look at someone's assertion:

Concrete is heavier than lead.

We look at how they tested this. Decide their belief is justified.

The we see if it is true. But this would be, in reality, either verifying with the same justification approach or with some other, one we consider better or at least as good.

If we decide it is not true we have made a decision that another justification process is better.

So to me it is a belief that is justified in a manner we respect.

I could say this another way....

We only have justifications, not truths.

(I realize this could be construed as self-contradictory)

[lixluke]

Lol!
Where is it demonstrated as a fact?
(Please note that you claiming it to be true is not demonstrating a fact.)

Furthermore, if you think that a random guess that happens to be true in actuality (not that you aware that it was when you made the guess) is knowledge then you are in a minority of one and thus perhaps this discussion is not for you.

There was - you argued against a claim that I had not made... i.e. you created a strawman.

No, it has not been answered, which is why I am asking.
And please just humour me and answer the question. As I explained, it will help me more fully understand your position:
"I believe the next roll of my 6-sided die will land on 3."
Before I make the roll, is this claim knowledge or misconception?

Your question has been answered. All you are doing is mixing and mingling abstractions. You stated in your given that it was a beleif. Random guess or any sort of method is irrelevant. The method at which a person arrives at the belief is not relevant. Has nothing to do with the situation. He simply has the belief that X is true.

Proposition X: Dice will land on 3.
A. Subject concludes X is true.
B. Subject concludes X is false.
C. Subject has not arrived at conclusion.

According to the example, the subject falls under A. How the subject arrived at A has no relevance. If subject falls under A, and X is true, then the subject possessed knowledge. If subject falls under A, and X is false, then subject does not possess knowledge. Not to mention the reasoning behind this fact has been demonstrated.

Even using this particular proposition, it can be logically demonstrated that 'material compelling a subject to a belief' has no relevance to whether or not the subject possesses knowledge.