Justification is not a requirement for knowledge.

[Doreen]

The idea of this debate is that there is no JTB. Simply a TB per say which is a beief that corresponds to the actual state of the proposition. The danger of subjectifying knowledge to any particular system of justification is that the subject doing so ends up operating under the blind presumption that his system of justification is justification period. Thus, instead of being aware that another subject used a method of justification/verification that he considers invalid, he blindly states that the subject has yet to verify.

The dilemma is that a conclusion is a verification. Such blindness causes one to make contradictory statements such as:
"Subject has concluded that X is true, but has yet to verify whether or not X is true."
"Subject has yet to determined whether or not his conclusion is correct."

These statements are completely meaningless and contradictory.
Here is an example of how this happens: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...6&postcount=60

What you say here seems to fit with what I am saying is your position.

Do you have other reasons for suggesting we use the term knowledge this way?

[jpappl]

Let's start with this. The idea that if X is true, then it is impossible for the observer to conclude that X is false. So let's apply this to your scenario.

You claim: If it is true in actuality, that the team won the game, then it is impossible for the subject to conclude that the team lost.

Of course, I would have to assert that your conclusion is completely wrong. You can call a subject delusional. You can call a subject anything you want. It has nothing to do with what the logical possibilities are in the scenario.

So here:
Given: X = Team wins game.
Given: Subject 1 believes X is true.
Given: Subject 2 believes X is false.

Throw all your tantrums all day. Claim stuff is pure delusion. This discussion cannot be productive until discontinue imposing views as the only possible conditions. As well as continue flying off the handle everytime you see something you personally would consider delusion. I don't deal with anything outside of keen objectivity.

If a subject observers anything, it is possible for that subject to conclude it as true or false no matter how delusional you personally think that subject may be.

So once again you have completely ignored that which proves you incorrect and started off in a different direction to avoid having to do what you are incapable of doing. Admit you are wrong.

You are literally stating in the above that if X team wins that it is perfectly logical for me to conclude that X team did not win and that is ok.

In other words it's ok to be delusional.

Lix, you are a coward pure and simple. I don't know why I thought you would change but I have to tell you that if you can't be honest with yourself then your screwed.

I'm done.

[lixluke]

So once again you have completely ignored that which proves you incorrect and started off in a different direction to avoid having to do what you are incapable of doing. Admit you are wrong.

You are literally stating in the above that if X team wins that it is perfectly logical for me to conclude that X team did not win and that is ok.

More tantrums. Typical. I have not gone onto any different tangent. I am simply establishing important conditions before proceeding.

I never stated anything regarding your scenario other than the fact that it is illogical to assume it is impossible for a subject to conlude that X is false if X is true. In your case, what I am saying that you it is illogical to claim that 'if the team won the game, it is impossible for a subject to conclude that the team lost the game."

Those are simply logical possible states. Yet you want to impose your idea of what is delusional or not, and make it seem as if that state is impossible. And thus, you throw your tantrum.

[lixluke]

What you say here seems to fit with what I am saying is your position.

Do you have other reasons for suggesting we use the term knowledge this way?

Well like what happened in the above post with jpappl happens all the time. All because subjectifying theings interfere with the ability to even create a simple scenario.

Really, the main reason why we 'shouldn't' base knowledge on justification is simply that we can't. First of all, somebody claims to know for a that X is definitely true. Yet even if X is true, he doesn't have knowledge unless he has justification for it? That's not even mentioning the fact that it's impossible for him to not have justification for it.

There is only one person an observer has to justify or verify anything to in order to arrive at a conclusion. Himself. If we eliminate all other observers from any scenario, and consider only one observer, only then can we have any idea on what can or cannot be considered knowledge.

[Doreen]

[FONT="Arial"]Well like what happened in the above post with jpappl happens all the time. All because subjectifying theings interfere with the ability to even create a simple scenario.

If you look at the recent exchange I've had with Dywyddyr you can see that he felt you were evaluating various justification processes and have decided that they are all as good as each other, in general, and over time. I have been trying to get across that you want to set aside the whole issue and are not judging justification processes. Further that when you are talking about a specific belief and a specific justification process, when you label it knowledge, you are not passing judgment on the justification process. I realize it may seem obvious to you that you are not doing this, but I think it might help the dialogue if you were aware of how people were taking you. Of course I will soon find out if my approach has been effective.

[lixluke]

If you look at the recent exchange I've had with Dywyddyr you can see that he felt you were evaluating various justification processes and have decided that they are all as good as each other, in general, and over time. I have been trying to get across that you want to set aside the whole issue and are not judging justification processes. Further that when you are talking about a specific belief and a specific justification process, when you label it knowledge, you are not passing judgment on the justification process. I realize it may seem obvious to you that you are not doing this, but I think it might help the dialogue if you were aware of how people were taking you. Of course I will soon find out if my approach has been effective.

What he is doing is trying to impose his idea of justification as the only possible system of justification. Somewhat similar to religious blind faith. He cannot let go of the fact that he hates the idea of a subject arriving to a conclusion using a form of justification that he considers absurd and illogical.

It's blind faith because in order to communicate, you HAVE to be aware that somebody else may consider your methods of justification as absurd as you consider his. So if you try to impose your methods on him when asking him to demonstrate his assertions, all that's going to happen is 2 people talking about apples and orangutans without being aware of it.

[glaucon]

There is only one person an observer has to justify or verify anything to in order to arrive at a conclusion.

A conclusion? Yes.
Knowledge? No.

This is your problem. You think that knowledge = conclusion.
This is false.

[Read-Only]

A conclusion? Yes.
Knowledge? No.

This is your problem. You think that knowledge = conclusion.
This is false.

Yes. But because he doesn't understand what EITHER of them are, he thinks they are the same thing.

He also seems to not understand the real meaning of "justification" nor "proof" either. ( He's just a kid babbling nonsense anyway.)

[Doreen]

What he is doing is trying to impose his idea of justification as the only possible system of justification. Somewhat similar to religious blind faith. He cannot let go of the fact that he hates the idea of a subject arriving to a conclusion using a form of justification that he considers absurd and illogical.

It's blind faith because in order to communicate, you HAVE to be aware that somebody else may consider your methods of justification as absurd as you consider his. So if you try to impose your methods on him when asking him to demonstrate his assertions, all that's going to happen is 2 people talking about apples and orangutans without being aware of it.

But, just to repeat. This is only a portion of the problem in the conversation. He is seeing you as asserting things you are not. Which this last post of yours may muddle.

[Doreen]

A conclusion? Yes.
Knowledge? No.

This is your problem. You think that knowledge = conclusion.
This is false.

I would say he is suggesting that it would be better if we used the word this way. I am not saying I agree, but I think there are problems with the JTB set up. We've been discussing that in the other thread. As it stands now with JTB is seems like there is one method of justification and that this has been verified. So when presented with a belief we don't have to treat 'our' justification method criteria as beliefs but as knowledge, the knowledge. If you add on this word 'true' it gets even more muddled. I understand your sense of the word true, but I think this differs from other people's version.

I think the application of these versions of knowledge is the key to actually having a discussion with Lixluke.

1) most people are taking him as asserting that dreams are as effective a way of deciding what is true and what is not as any other. He has not asserted that. He has said that he does not care what the justification/methodology is when deciding what is knowledge. You can read my posts with Dywyddyr and see what I mean is the distinction.

2) the reasons people like knowledge to mean something more than belief have to do with social/practical issues. I think it will clarify things if people show why they would like a distinction in practical terms. The focus seems to have been mostly on saying that the methodologies are bad ones. Or that his use of the term is wrong. But he is suggesting that the term be used differently. So telling him that a conclusion is not knowledge is begging the question: is his schema useful in some ways? or what ways might it be useful? or what practical problems arise if we use the word in the way he wants us to?

[Read-Only]

So telling him that a conclusion is not knowledge is begging the question: is his schema useful in some ways? or what ways might it be useful? or what practical problems arise if we use the word in the way he wants us to?

I can answer that one VERY easily. To adopt his way would quickly open us all up to become victims of every piece of propaganda or half-truth that anyone wanted to subject us to. It would be a "system" or "method" - whatever you want to call it - that would put lies and falsehoods on the same footing as truth.

[Dywyddyr]

Irrelevant.

More of your nonsense: you make a generalised statement and when it's shown you are wrong you claim it's irrelevant?
The fact is you were wrong.

[Dywyddyr]

Because, again arguing from his position, many/most would not lead to true beliefs. Though in fact, he does not even need to make estimates like this. I am just guessing he would. You are confusing his bracketing off of justification as saying that all ways of arriving at a belief are equally good over time. Whereas he is saying that in a given instance we should ignore all that and focus on if the person is correct. If they are correct it is knowledge.

And how do you tell they are correct?
Anyone can claim knowledge - but is it a valid claim if it's not justified?
And if it isn't why should we take notice of their claim, or use that (mis)information?

You can use any "alternative" method you like to "justify" a conclusion.
Until it is corroborated (verified) in the "usual way" it won't be accepted as valid.
And that's the difference: dreams, divination etc etc require corroborating methods justification: the "scientific method"* doesn't.

* Or subsets thereof.

[lixluke]

A conclusion? Yes.
Knowledge? No.

This is your problem. You think that knowledge = conclusion.
This is false.

No. The exact same thing you're claiming is my problem is the problem everybody else is having. That false idea that a person who simply arrives at a conclusion has knowledge. You're misinterpreting the idea here of what a belief is. A subject who arrives at a conclusion has a belief. If a subject solves an equation, he ends up with a belief (a claim of knowledge). If a subject goes through some form of verification, he has a belief. Wheter a subject has a dream, takes a pill, or uses the scientific method, he ends up with a belief. He conducts his experiments, shows everybody, whatever. He arrives at a conclusion. X is true. He then claim knowledge that X is true.

I am not saying that conclusion 'necessarily' equals knowledge. I am saying that conclusion must necessarily = either knowledge of misconception. A conclusion has to be one or the other. It cannot 'become' one or another. It simply is or it isn't.

Why is it that others have the idea that knowledge = conclusion? Becuase they say that a person who uses the scientific method and lots of what they consider to be "legitimate" verification doesn't end up with a belief, but 'necessarily' knowledge. Which, as explained, is not possible.

[lixluke]

More of your nonsense: you make a generalised statement and when it's shown you are wrong you claim it's irrelevant?
The fact is you were wrong.

No because you're taking statements out of context. Statements that I never made.

[lixluke]

He also seems to not understand the real meaning of "justification" nor "proof" either. ( He's just a kid babbling nonsense anyway.)

You keep saying that all day long, but have yet to even respond to actual points being made, and explain what it is about them that you consider to be flawed.

I would say he is suggesting that it would be better if we used the word this way.

No. Not in the slightest. I never said we should use Knowledge as conclusion. Nor have I ever said it was. What I've been doing is showing how the idea that 'knowledge = conclusion' is misinterpretation. Conclusion is a claim of knowledge. Whether or not it actually is knowledge is a different story.

Here's an example:
1. Proposition X: There is a ball in the box.
2. Subject sees in the box.
3. Subject concludes there is a ball in the box.

Now am I saying that the subject has knowledge? No. Of course not. Until a subject arrives at a conclusion, he doesn't have a belief. Upon arriving at a conclusion, he has a belief. Does the fact that the subject arrived at a conclusion mean that he has knowledge? No. Does this mean that the subject doesn't have knowledge? No. It is possible that his belief is either knowledge or misconception. Because there is no 'given' in the scenario stating whether or not there is a ball in the box, nobody anyalyzing the scenario can say.

[Dywyddyr]

No because you're taking statements out of context. Statements that I never made.

Two more lies.

Let's start with this. The idea that if X is true, then it is impossible for the observer to conclude that X is false.

How did I take that out of context?
It's exactly what I quoted here.
If you didn't make that statement why is it right here in your post?
The statement is WRONG.
It is eminently possible for someone to conclude that X is false even if X is true, as I noted.

[lixluke]

How did I take that out of context?
It's exactly what I quoted here.

Because that's not where it was quoted from. If I say "Your mother claims Wikipedia is God.", does that mean I made the statement that Wikipedia is God?
Look:

Wikipedia is God

[Dywyddyr]

Here's an example:
1. Proposition X: There is a ball in the box.
2. Subject sees in the box.
3. Subject concludes there is a ball in the box.
Now am I saying that the subject has knowledge?

Given that example: i.e. there is/ is not a ball in the box and the subject has looked inside the box (and therefore seen/ not seen the ball) then it IS knowledge.

Does the fact that the subject arrived at a conclusion mean that he has knowledge? No. Does this mean that the subject doesn't have knowledge? No. It is possible that his belief is either knowledge or misconception.

Yet you have stated repeatedly that anyone arriving at a conclusion will claim knowledge.

If a subject's conclusion doesn't correspond to actuality, then the subject must still consider his conclusion to be knowledge.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...91&postcount=9

The subject must claim that his belief about a proposition is knowledge.

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

From the frame of reference of the subject, he MUST consider himself to have knowledge.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...42&postcount=1
Etc... too many examples to list.

[Dywyddyr]

Because that's not where it was quoted from.

Learn to read.
I said it was quoted there and also gave a link to where it was quoted from.
It was quoted (once again) from here.