Justification is not a requirement for knowledge.

[jpappl]

Lix,

The problem is that you are unwilling to allow yourself the opportunity to learn because you are unwilling to admit that you are wrong about anything. I have provided the evidence many times now that you are in error about what is considered knowledge and when and what is merely belief.

This is the last time I will lay this out for you. Either you get it or you don'.

Proposition X = Team wins game at 12:10.
(NOTE: IT HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN THAT X IS TRUE OR FALSE.)

The whole point is that I don't need to give you an answer for what happens at 12:10 and am purposely keeping that from you so that you don't assign (see into the future abilities to X).

The question was, is it knowledge at 12:00 ?

So last time, read and comprehend carefully.

At 12:00 X is watching the game and believes his team will win the game.

The game is not over until 12:10. When the game is over the team either won or they lost. There are no other possibilities and X will witness the end of the game.

Can X have knowledge at 12:10 ? Yes, his belief would have been confirmed at 12:10 IF they win.

Can X have misconception at 12:10 ? Yes, his belief would have been wrong IF they lost.

Can X have knowledge at 12:00 ? No, because there are two possible outcomes of the game win or lose, the game has not yet ended.

Can X have misconception at 12:00 ? No, because there are two possible outcomes of the game win or lose, the game has not yet ended.

At 12:00 and up until 12:10 and not before 12:10 at any point in between until the game is over, it is merely belief.

Unless he can see into the future he can not have knowledge about the outcome of the game until 12:10.

Only belief.

You desparately want me to offer an outcome because then it fits into your improper use of the term knowledge in this scenario. Without knowing the outcome you can't call it knowledge or misconception at 12:00.

And NOBODY will know the outcome until the game is over. THEN AND ONLY THEN CAN YOU CALL IT KNOWLEDGE OR MISCONCEPTION.

What you want to do is assign a guess or a lucky guess to the games outcome as knowledge. IOW, if you know the team won, then you can say it WAS knowledge at 12:00, but the outcome CAN NOT BE KNOWN until 12:10. So it CAN NOT BE KNOWLEDGE until 12:10.

Do you understand ? Yes or No.

Fingers crossed again hoping to almighty God that you do.

[lixluke]

You desparately want me to offer an outcome because then it fits into your improper use of the term knowledge in this scenario.

I don't want you to offer an outcome.I even posted my interpretation of your scenario without stating any outcome:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=194

I simply stated that it was impossible for ANYBODY to answer certain things without the necessary givens to answer them. You cannot expect yes/no answers to questions that are contingent on certain givens.

Consider the givens presented, is it possible for ME to tell whether the subject at 12:00 has knowledge or misconception? No.

Is it possible for ME to tell whether the subject at 12:00 has knowledge or misconception? No.

Does that mean in either case that I'm claiming that it's impossible for the subject to have knowledge or misconception? Answer why you would interpret it as that?

All your nonsensical accusations that I cannot admit being wrong when I am the only one here approaching this discussion with legitimacy. On the other hand, all you're doing is making accusations, intentionally distorting what others are saying, trying to coerce other into agreeing with your points, refusing to abide by productive discussion. You're the only one here saying "either agree with me or disagree with me". You're the only one who refuses to admit to being wrong. That you're misinterpreting lots of what is involved in this discussion. You cannot even admit that. Meanwhile refusing to acknowledge the flaws in your argument. You're the only one here throwing tantrums.

FACT: The only difference between the subject at 12:00 and at 12:10 is the method that the subject used to arrive at his conclusion. In both cases, the subject arrived at a conclusion claiming to know for a fact that X is true. In both cases, the subject's conclusion either does or doesn't correspond to the t/f state of proposition X.

[Dywyddyr]

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
So how do you tell if something is true or not?

That question is relative to the subject.

Exactly: different realities/ truths for different individuals.
There is no truth under your "system".

[jpappl]

Lix,

Consider the givens presented, is it possible for ME to tell whether the subject at 12:00 has knowledge or misconception? No.

Yes it is, and he can not have knowledge or misconception at 12:00 because the game doesn't end for 10 minutes. Unless X can see into the future 10 minutes and knows what the outcome will be.

Does that mean in either case that I'm claiming that it's impossible for the subject to have knowledge or misconception? Answer why you would interpret it as that?

Unless he can see 10 minutes into the future and knows the actual outcome of the game, he can not have knowledge or misconception about the result of the game.

That you're misinterpreting lots of what is involved in this discussion. You cannot even admit that.

I am not misinterpreting. I offered an extremely simple scenario to show you that you can't possibly call it knowledge or misconception at 12:00. The problem is that you do not understand when a belief becomes knowledge or misconception.

The proof that you are wrong is that you can't say X has knowledge or misconception at 12:00, he has to wait until the game is over to know the answer.

But when given the answer, win or lose, then you suddenly are offering X knowledge or misconception at 12:00 when at best it's a guess. But the question was does he have knowledge or misconception at 12:00, and the answer is NO. He can not.

Unless he can see 10 minutes into the future.

FACT: The only difference between the subject at 12:00 and at 12:10 is the method that the subject used to arrive at his conclusion. In both cases, the subject arrived at a conclusion claiming to know for a fact that X is true

No, you are twisting this. He doesn't claim anything for a fact at 12:00, he only states he believes his team will win.

What happens at 12:10 when the game is over, is that he has an answer to his belief. Knowledge or misconception is not gained until 12:10. That is when and only when he knows for a fact what the result was.

What does the end of the game represent to the state of knowledge he has at 12:10 ?

Answer: justification, verification, confirmation. The game is over and he has his answer. Everything up to that moment when the final whistle blew was just a belief.

[lixluke]

No, you are twisting this. He doesn't claim anything for a fact at 12:00, he only states he believes his team will win.

I don't think you're getting what this thread is about. This thread is about knowledge as it relates to subjects who arrive at conclusions. Subjects who "claim" to know X is true. Subjects who "claim" to possess knowledge that X is true.

A subject has a level of certainty about any particular proposition. Below a certain threshold of certainty, the subject has not arrived at any conclusion about whether the proposition is true or false.

Above this threshold, the subject has arrived at a conclusion (made a conclusive determination) about the t/f state of the proposition. This conclusion (determination) may or may not correspond to the actual t/f state of the proposition. This conclusion is the subject's belief about the proposition.

In ANY proposition, either a subject is inconclusive (making no claim to know whether or not X is true) or conclusive (claims to know that X is true.)

You seem to be unaware that this thread is discussing whether or not a subject who "claims" knowledge actually has knowledge. Nowhere in this thread is ANYBODY claiming that 'a subject who doesn't even claim to know something can possess knowledge'.

HERE ARE 2 VERY IMPORTANT POINTS THAT NEED TO BE CLARIFIED:
1. Either a subject is claiming to possess knowledge or he isn't.

2. If a subject isn't even claiming to possess knowledge, then he cannot possess knowledge.

3. If a subject is claiming to possess knowledge, then he either has knowledge or misconception.


Inconclusive = No claim of knowledge (No belief, therefore cannot possess knowledge.)

Conclusive = Claim of knowledge (Belief. Therefore, subject may or may not possess knowledge.)


You stated in your very first example:

If in a game with 10 minutes to go, your team is down by 5 points, but you believe they will win

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...1&postcount=42

What is in question is the following:
If a subject at 12:00 claims to possess knowledge that the team will win, does he have knowledge?

This thread is only discussing 2 possible states of the subject.
1. Below threshold. Any proposition a subject does not claim knowledge about. (Inconclusion.)
2. Above threshold. Any proposition a subject claims knowledge about. (Conclusion.)

If the subject at 12:00 doesn't even claim to have knowledge, then there is no discussion. This thread is not questioning subjects who consider matters inconclusive. This thread is discussing subjects who claim knowledge about matters.

What you're doing is confusing "state of belief" with "statement of belief". Consider your 2 quotes:
1. If in a game with 10 minutes to go, your team is down by 5 points, but you believe they will win

2. he only states he believes his team will win.

In the first, you're describing a subject in the "state of belief". In the second, you're claiming that the subject, this whole time, was only making a "statement of belief".

Linguistically, the statement "I believe" is something totally different from an actual state of belief. Typically, somebody making the statement "I believe" is in a state of inconclusion. Meanwhile, the actual state of belief is not inconclusion. It is a state of conclusion. Somebody making the statement "I know" refers to somebody in a state of conclusion (state of belief).

We are all discussing knowledge as it pertains to beleif (as in a conclusion on a matter). Observer considers the planet Earth, and concludes that Earth is not flat. Subject possesses belief that Earth is not flat. Therefore, subject claims to know Earth is not flat. This belief may be knowledge or misconception. We are not discussing a subject who observes a proposition, and doesn't come to any conclusion.

If the subject in your scenario did not arrive at any conclusion (as in claiming to know for a fact that the team wins at 12:10), then what is the discussion? If he's not even "claiming" to possess knowledge, why would we even discuss whether or not he actually possesses knowledge?

[lixluke]

Exactly: different realities/ truths for different individuals.
There is no truth under your "system".

There is no such thing as different truths. There are only different observations of truth. Truth exists INDEPENDENT of the observer. It's not that there is no truth in my system. It's that truth doesn't give a crap who is observing it. If X is true, then X is true whether or not you or anybody concludes it to be false. Whether or not the observer knows it's true doesn't have any affect on X. Nothing the observer can do can change X.

[jpappl]

Lix,

If the subject at 12:00 doesn't even claim to have knowledge, then there is no discussion

How can X claim to have knowledge at 12:00 about the result of the game if the game isn't over yet ?

Yet, if they indeed win, you want to call it knowledge at 12:00. Don't you see the contradiction ?

[lixluke]

Lix,



How can X claim to have knowledge at 12:00 about the result of the game if the game isn't over yet ?

Yet, if they indeed win, you want to call it knowledge at 12:00. Don't you see the contradiction ?

In ANY proposition, a subject has 3 possible possitions:
1. X is definitely true. (past threshold of certainty)
2. X is definitely false. (past threshold of certainty)
3. Inconclusion. (not past threshold of certainty)

The trap is mixing presumptions into the 3 possible states. There is nothing anybody can do about it. At 12:00, there are 3 possible states. At 12:10, there are 3 possible states. The "how" is not up to me or anybody else. If it is a given, that the subject made a conclusion, the "how" can be provided by whomever is authoring the scenario.

The "how" is anything. Justification (verification/confirmation/evidence/proof/etc.) is the how. All of it is simply ANYTHING that has compelled the subject past the threshold into the state of belief (conclusion). ANYTIME a subject is in the state of conclusion, there has to be some form of justification that compelled him to that state.

That is why the statement is impossible: "Subject claims to know X is true, but hasn't verified it."

"Verification" (or whatever term you want to use to represent justification) is ANYTHING that compels a subject to a conclusion. The problem is that people like to subjectify terminology, and presume that "verification" is ONLY what they personally view it to be. Thus, when an author uses the word "verify", he is likely imposing his own personal idea of what is necessary for something to be considered "verification". For example, visual perception.

Because a subject hasn't visually perceived something, the author may state that the subject hasn't "verified" it. All the author is saying is that the subject hasn't visually perceived it. What the author doesn't understand is that 'visual perception' is nothing more than material that compels a subject to a conclusion. Just like anything else that could possibly compel a subject to a conclusion. Verify, justify, confirm, whatever word you want to use, is ANY material that compels a subject to a conclusion.

Only the author can 'give' the "how". The point is, if a subject is in a state of conclusion, and if 'visual perception' was not what compelled the subject to his conclusion. Then, some form of verification/justification other than 'visual perception' must have compelled the subject to his conclusion.

Either way, the only difference between a subject claiming to know X is true at 12:00, and a subject claiming to know that X is true at 12:10 is that 'visual perception' compelled the subject at 12:10 to his conclusion. In both cases, some form of material compelled the subject to his conclusion. In both cases, just because the subject claims to know that X is true, it doesn't necessarily mean that he does know.


NOTE THE DEBATE:
When discussing knowledge as it relates to justification, we are discussing scenarious in which a subject claims to know something. For example:
1. Subject claiming to know that there is ball in a box by visually perceiving in the box. Does he have knowledge?
2. A subject claiming to know that there is a ball in a box without visually perceiving in the box. Does he have knowledge?

In both cases, there is no difference in the subject's level of certainty. The question is about knowledge as it relates to whatever it is that compelled the subject to his conclusion.

[jpappl]

Lix,

I'm sorry, you just don't get it.

None of your post has anything to do with the scenario that I originally laid out. You are either.

1) Purposely avoiding answering direct questions to avoid being cornered, which by the way I have done to you and you have done to yourself like ten times in the past few days.

or

2) You are incapable of understanding this. In which case you don't even realize that you are doing number 1 above.

This

Either way, the only difference between a subject claiming to know X is true at 12:00, and a subject claiming to know that X is true at 12:10 is that 'visual perception' compelled the subject at 12:10 to his conclusion. In both cases, some form of material compelled the subject to his conclusion. In both cases, just because the subject claims to know that X is true, it doesn't necessarily mean that he does know.

In the scenario I laid out I purposely offered a non-subjective answer. The end of the game. Which CAN NOT have two or more answers, only one. The game is over and there is a result.

At this point, regardless of the games result, everyone who witnessed the game including our X, has knowledge. IOW, they now KNOW the result.

Up until that moment (the end of the game), they CAN NOT have knowledge.

In the scenario that I laid out for you.

At 12:00 and up until 12:10 it can only be belief.
At 12:10 it can only be knowledge.

If you don't understand this, I can not do anything else for you.

[Dywyddyr]

It's that truth doesn't give a crap who is observing it. If X is true, then X is true whether or not you or anybody concludes it to be false. Whether or not the observer knows it's true doesn't have any affect on X. Nothing the observer can do can change X.

And once more you miss (either intentionally or unintentionally) the point.
How does one know for sure what the truth actually is if, as you keep saying, everyone's method of validation (proving what is true) is equally good?

[Sarkus]

Lixluke, your claim of "Justification is not a requirement for knowledge" is logically incorrect given your propositions.

First, you are saying that a Belief must be derived from Justifictation (your Proposition 3):

PROPOSITION 3: In order for a subject to be in a state of belief, there must be some form of material that compelled the subject beyond the threshold of certainty (whether the subject is aware of or is capable of defining this material or not). Whatever material that has compelled a subject to a belief is, relative to that subject, justification (proof/evidence/verification/confirmation etc).

As such you are saying that Knowledge is a True Belief because all beliefs must, by definition, be justified.

Your understanding of the term "belief" therefore includes a prerequisite of justification.
You are thus saying that "Knowlede is a True Belief" is sufficient because your understanding of what a belief is already includes justification, whatever that justification might be.
You can not see someone having a belief that is unjustified.

Unfortunately it IS possible to have an unjustified belief.
A belief usually comes with justification, sure, but it is possible to have a belief that is not justified. I believe my next toss of the coin will be HEADS. Unjustified. But I believe it.
Q.E.D.

Once you see this flaw you will understand why "Justified" is important.
Knowledge is a Justified True Belief.


Furthermore, many would claim that a belief IS UNJUSTIFIED if the supposed "justification" does not conform to some universal qualities.
Therefore if the subjective "justification" does not have quality A, B or C then it is objectively NOT justification - and thus the belief is UNJUSTIFIED.
This further demonstrates that it is possible to have an UNJUSTIFIED BELIEF, which further counters your understanding that beliefs can't be unjustified.

This therefore counters your proposition 3, where your understanding leads you to claim that ANY claim of "justification" is indeed justification. It is not.

Proposition 4 and 5 therefore are flawed as they are based on the flawed 3rd proposition.


As requested, Lixluke, you have challenged anyone to find flaw in your "logic".

I have done so.

[lixluke]

Wrong. Because you're misinterpreting the discussion. You're trying to impose your ideas on what this discussion is about without even a correct interpretation of the points being made. Then make ridiculous proclaimations about "finding flaws in the logic".

It must first be established that a subject can never ever possess the POV of actuality. Truth is independent of the observer/subject. A subject can only possess his own POV (belief). If a subject's POV about a t/f proposition doesn't correspond to the actual state of the proposition, then the subject does not possess knowledge. While it is possible for a subject to possess a 'POV about a proposition' that corresponds to 'the actual state of the proposition', it is impossible for a subject to possess the POV of actuality.

Surprisingly enough, Dywyddyr is much further into what this discussion is really about than many others. So is Doreen. Many others are claiming I'm wrong, when they're not even correctly interpreting exactly what it is I'm saying.

Before event and after event, the subject has 3 possible POV states.
1. Subject believes that X is definitely true.
2. Subject believes that X is definitely false.
3. Subject has not made a definite determination about X.

Before or after event, if a subject is at #3, then subject does not possess knowledge. Nobody disagrees with this, so this is not what is being discussed. This discussion is about what happens if a subject makes a definite determination.

If the subject made a conclusive determination, whether before or after the event, then the subject possesses a conclusive POV (X is true). It doesn't matter whether the subject is in a box where he can't visually perceive the event, in front of the event, in the past, present, future. No matter where the subject is or what his methods are, the point is that the subject arrived at a definite CONCLUSION. Therefore, the subject possesses a POV about the event that may or may not correspond to actuality.

Before the event, something compelled the subject to his conclusion. From the POV of the subject, this is his verification/justification.

Likewise, after the event, something compelled the subject to his conclusion. From the POV of the subject, this is his verification/justification.

No matter what it is that compelled a subject from inconclusion to definite conclusion, from the POV of the subject, it is his justification. You may or may not like it. You may or may not agree with it. You may or may not know what it is. Either way, if a subject possesses a conclusive POV, then something MUST have compelled the subject to his conlusion.

This discussion is not about subjects making guesses or anything other than complete conclusion from the POV of the subject.

[lixluke]

At this point, regardless of the games result, everyone who witnessed the game including our X, has knowledge. IOW, they now KNOW the result.

No. You CANNOT throw in illogical presumptions. This completely defies logic. This is why your scenario is not effectively representing what this discussion is about. You are making an IMPOSSIBLE conclusion about the situation. On the contrary to your statement, NOT EVERYONE who witnessed the game has knowledge.

ONLY those who's conclusion after witnessing the game corresponds to the actual state of the game possess knowledge. This is where your logic is flawed.

FALLACY: If subject visually perceives the team winning the game, then the subject will conclude that the team won the game.

After how many posts, you're not getting this discussion. There are 3 possibilities that you CANNOT impose YOUR subjective preconceptions on.
1. Subject concludes X is true.
2. Subject concludes X is false.
3. Subject has not arrived at a conclusion.

After witnessing the end of the game, the subject has those 3 possible states. Likewise, before witnessing the end of the game, the subject has those 3 possible states.

[lixluke]

Lixluke, your claim of "Justification is not a requirement for knowledge" is logically incorrect given your propositions.

First, you are saying that a Belief must be derived from Justifictation (your Proposition 3):

As such you are saying that Knowledge is a True Belief because all beliefs must, by definition, be justified.

Your understanding of the term "belief" therefore includes a prerequisite of justification.
You are thus saying that "Knowlede is a True Belief" is sufficient because your understanding of what a belief is already includes justification, whatever that justification might be.
You can not see someone having a belief that is unjustified.

Unfortunately it IS possible to have an unjustified belief.
A belief usually comes with justification, sure, but it is possible to have a belief that is not justified. I believe my next toss of the coin will be HEADS. Unjustified. But I believe it.
Q.E.D.

Once you see this flaw you will understand why "Justified" is important.
Knowledge is a Justified True Belief.


Furthermore, many would claim that a belief IS UNJUSTIFIED if the supposed "justification" does not conform to some universal qualities.
Therefore if the subjective "justification" does not have quality A, B or C then it is objectively NOT justification - and thus the belief is UNJUSTIFIED.
This further demonstrates that it is possible to have an UNJUSTIFIED BELIEF, which further counters your understanding that beliefs can't be unjustified.

This therefore counters your proposition 3, where your understanding leads you to claim that ANY claim of "justification" is indeed justification. It is not.

Proposition 4 and 5 therefore are flawed as they are based on the flawed 3rd proposition.


As requested, Lixluke, you have challenged anyone to find flaw in your "logic".

I have done so.

Completely illogical.

CONSIDER
Coin lands on heads. True or false?

Prior to coin toss, subject concludes that X is true. Something MUST have compelled the subject to his conclusion. Whatever that 'something' is, it is from the POV of the subject, THAT subject's verification/justification.

After coin toss, subject concludes that X is true. Something MUST have compelled the subject to his conclusion. Whatever that 'something' is, it is from the POV of the subject, THAT subject's verification/justification.

1. Coin lands on heads. Both conclusions are correct.
2. Coin lands on tails. Both conclussions are incorrect.

If there is a universal form of justification that everybody "should" use, then:
1. Prior to the event, there was still something that compelled the subject to his conclusion.

2. After the event, there was still something that compelled the subject to his conclusion.

3. In both cases, whether or not the subject used this "universal justification", from the POV of the subject, whatever it was that compelled the subject to his conclusion is that subject's justification/verification.

The point is that before the event or after the event, you CANNOT say that the subject has not determined outcome. As long as the subject made a conclusion, from the POV of the subject, he HAS determined the outcome. In fact, it was a 'given' by the author (you) that the subject arrived at a conclusion. If you claim that the subject did not determine the outcome, then you're claiming that he never arrived at his conclusion.

[glaucon]

THAT subject's verification/justification.

Totally incorrect.
What you're describing is the method by which one makes a guess, or an election.

You completely misunderstand what justification is.

[Sarkus]

Wrong. Because you're misinterpreting the discussion. You're trying to impose your ideas on what this discussion is about without even a correct interpretation of the points being made. Then make ridiculous proclaimations about "finding flaws in the logic".

Is the first line of your Opening Post: "I challenge anybody to prove this wrong: Knowledge is a belief that corresponds to actuality regardless of method of justification for the belief. Regardless of the subjects frame of reference in space/time."
Or am I somehow wrong?

Did you not then try to demonstrate the reasoning behind your claim... the logic... through Propositions 1 to 5?

Have you then even read what I have written? Or have you just said "Wrong" with no other explanation other than to regurgitate the same claims as you have made, as if they are explaining why my analysis is flawed.
I have explained why yours is flawed - and in response you are just restating your claims.
There is no additional information you are providing.
There is no refutation of the analysis of the flaws in your logic.
There is just you regurtitating the same claims.

And even in this regurgitation you are confirming my analysis:

Before the event, something compelled the subject to his conclusion. From the POV of the subject, this is his verification/justification.

Likewise, after the event, something compelled the subject to his conclusion. From the POV of the subject, this is his verification/justification.

No matter what it is that compelled a subject from inconclusion to definite conclusion, from the POV of the subject, it is his justification.

As I said previously, your definition/understanding of BELIEF includes an inherent justification. I have identified this as being what you are saying.
Are you now disputing this, or do you stand by this?

You may or may not like it. You may or may not agree with it. You may or may not know what it is. Either way, if a subject possesses a conclusive POV, then something MUST have compelled the subject to his conlusion.

You are saying that a belief has inherent justification.

I am saying that it is does not have to have justification.
I have given you an example of a belief that has no justification... a guess where they believe their guess to be correct.
No justification.

This discussion is not about subjects making guesses or anything other than complete conclusion from the POV of the subject.

So if I bring up examples that demonstrate your position to be incorrect then this discussion is somehow not to include them???

So this discussion is only for those that agree with you?


You have made your claim in the OP - and provided the logic.
You challenged (your word) someone to show it to be incorrect.

I have done so.
If YOU disagree, have the decency to demonstrate where my analysis is wrong, just as I have amply demonstrated yours to be flawed.

[glaucon]

I have submitted the following to The Journal of Philosophy and The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy:


The Fallacy of Egomaniacal Myopia

lat: myopia egoistica

Informal fallacy where one continues to assert a case regardless of any criticism or counter-argument.

To be found often in the writings of ideologues, this fallacy represents either the inability to conceive beyond one's own understanding, or the refusal to recognize legitimate flaws therein [or both].


see also: solipsism, delusion, oblivious, obstinate, evasion, intransigent

[lixluke]

If YOU disagree, have the decency to demonstrate where my analysis is wrong,

No problem:

You CANNOT impose your idea of justification onto a subject. As in:
"If the Subject did not use what I consider to be justification, then the subject doesn't consider his conclusion to be confirmed/verified."

This discussion is not about a subject who remotely claims inconclusion. This discussion is about a subject who completely claims his conclusion as confirmed/verified/justified. Regardless of your idea of whether or not a justification is valid, if, from the subject's POV, the conclusion is completely justified/confirmed/verified, then there is nothing you can do about it.


Prior to coin toss, did the subject arrive at a conclusion? Yes.

After the coin toss, did the subject arrive at a conclsion? Yes.

In both cases, did the subject make a conclusive determination regarding the outcome of the coin toss? Yes.

In both cases, was there something that compelled the subject to his conclusion? Yes.

From the subject's POV, does the subject in both cases consider his conclusion to be completely justified/verified/confirmed? Yes. (Otherwise, he would consider the matter inconclusive/unconfirmed/undetermined/unverified.)


Hence:

CONSIDER
Coin lands on heads. True or false?

Prior to coin toss, subject concludes that X is true. Something MUST have compelled the subject to his conclusion. Whatever that 'something' is, it is from the POV of the subject, THAT subject's verification/justification.

After coin toss, subject concludes that X is true. Something MUST have compelled the subject to his conclusion. Whatever that 'something' is, it is from the POV of the subject, THAT subject's verification/justification.

1. Coin lands on heads. Both conclusions are correct.
2. Coin lands on tails. Both conclusions are incorrect.

If there is a universal form of justification that everybody "should" use, then:
1. Prior to the event, there was still something that compelled the subject to his conclusion.

2. After the event, there was still something that compelled the subject to his conclusion.

3. In both cases, whether or not the subject used this "universal justification", from the POV of the subject, whatever it was that compelled the subject to his conclusion is that subject's justification/verification.

The point is that before the event or after the event, you CANNOT say that the subject has not determined outcome. As long as the subject made a conclusion, from the POV of the subject, he HAS determined the outcome. In fact, it was a 'given' by the author (you) that the subject arrived at a conclusion. If you claim that the subject did not determine the outcome, then you're claiming that he never arrived at his conclusion.

[jpappl]

I have submitted the following to The Journal of Philosophy and The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy:


The Fallacy of Egomaniacal Myopia

lat: myopia egoistica

Informal fallacy where one continues to assert a case regardless of any criticism or counter-argument.

To be found often in the writings of ideologues, this fallacy represents either the inability to conceive beyond one's own understanding, or the refusal to recognize legitimate flaws therein [or both].


see also: solipsism, delusion, oblivious, obstinate, evasion, intransigent

LOFL. Yes, what else is there to say at this point.

[lixluke]

Totally incorrect.
What you're describing is the method by which one makes a guess, or an election.

You completely misunderstand what justification is.

Once again, you state something is incorrect just because you said so. Yet no proof.