Justification is not a requirement for knowledge.

[Dywyddyr]

What you consider to be "proof" can be considered absolute ignorant bollocks to somebody else. What somebody else considers "proof" can be absolute ignorant bollocks to you.

Correct. Unless we have an agreed upon (mutual/ "universal") method of verification.

No it's the other way around. Justify, prove, verify, confirm, determine, etc. Once again, you're subjectifying "proof" according to your subjective standards as THE (given) standards.
If you subjectify "proof" according to your standards, then implications are that you're subjectifying truth of propositions in actuality.

Except that you have already claimed that verification IS subjective where does that leave YOU?

However, the material that has compelled a subject to a belief is solely that subject's justification.

From the OP.

If a proposition in actuality exists independent of observation, then justification, conclusion, or anything the subject does has no effect on it. Knowledge cannot depend on what a subject personally considers to be "proof". It must solely depend on truth in actuality.

Now you're getting it.
Yet your claim is that verification (i.e. proof) is subjective and up to the individual.

Whatever material that has compelled a subject to a belief is, relative to that subject, justification (proof/evidence/verification/confirmation etc).

PROPOSITION 5: If there is no universal "Justification" that is a necessary requirement for a subject to be in a state of belief, then it is impossible for a subject's location/position//frame of reference in space/time to be a necessary factor in a subject's possession of knowledge.

[jpappl]

Lix,

YOU are happy about this, and YOU claim he has knowledge

I have not claimed he has knowledge at 12:00 not once ever. That is what you are saying and the only way that is possible is if he can see into the future.

Barring that he only has belief and not knowledge at 12:00. as well as 12:01 and so on until 12:10.

The reason I used the game scenario is there is an ending that is not subjective.

The game is over. There is a winner and a loser at 12:10. The score is tallied.

The only way for someone to conclude that the result is different than what the result was at 12:10 is for them to be delusional about the actual result.

12:00 there is belief that the team will win.

At 12:10 that is confirmed either way but NOT UNTIL 12:10.

At which point he has knowledge. Their either won or lost. Either way he now has knowledge of the result.

There is no need to go past 12:10 for the answer and there is no clear answer until 12:10.

Do you see now ? Keeping fingers crossed.

[Read-Only]

Lix,



I have not claimed he has knowledge at 12:00 not once ever. That is what you are saying and the only way that is possible is if he can see into the future.

Barring that he only has belief and not knowledge at 12:00. as well as 12:01 and so on until 12:10.

The reason I used the game scenario is there is an ending that is not subjective.

The game is over. There is a winner and a loser at 12:10. The score is tallied.

The only way for someone to conclude that the result is different than what the result was at 12:10 is for them to be delusional about the actual result.

12:00 there is belief that the team will win.

At 12:10 that is confirmed either way but NOT UNTIL 12:10.

At which point he has knowledge. Their either won or lost. Either way he now has knowledge of the result.

There is no need to go past 12:10 for the answer and there is no clear answer until 12:10.

Do you see now ? Keeping fingers crossed.

Don't keep you fingers crossed too long - they may cramp.

I say that because despite the fact that your example is a good one and very clear, I seriously doubt he has what it takes to fully understand it.

[lixluke]

Lix,



I have not claimed he has knowledge at 12:00 not once ever. That is what you are saying and the only way that is possible is if he can see into the future.

Barring that he only has belief and not knowledge at 12:00. as well as 12:01 and so on until 12:10.

The reason I used the game scenario is there is an ending that is not subjective.

The game is over. There is a winner and a loser at 12:10. The score is tallied.

The only way for someone to conclude that the result is different than what the result was at 12:10 is for them to be delusional about the actual result.

12:00 there is belief that the team will win.

At 12:10 that is confirmed either way but NOT UNTIL 12:10.

At which point he has knowledge. Their either won or lost. Either way he now has knowledge of the result.

There is no need to go past 12:10 for the answer and there is no clear answer until 12:10.

Do you see now ? Keeping fingers crossed.

You've misinterpreted what I said. I didn't say you are happy that he has knowledge at 12pm. I meant that you are not happy unless he uses a form of verification that YOU agree with such as visual perception.

What you're doing is throwing 'delusions', 'seeing into the future', and other subjectivities into the scenario as if they have any effect on the scenario. "Oh but after seeing them win, he concludes they lost. He must be delusional." If he is delusional, that is fine. Get off of it. All that I'm doing is showing the 2 possible states a subject CAN have about a given proposition. As long as you continue to ignore what you consider 'delusional' as a possible state of the subject, you will continue to run into traps.


So here are the possible states without throwing any tantrums.
-Team wins.
-After confirmation through visual perception, Subject 1 concludes they won.
-After confirmation through visual perception, Subject 2 concludes they lost.

Delusion or not, if you cannot accept that these are the 2 possible observer states without going into a fit about it, you will not be able to continue this discussion properly. Yes we all know that you consider the second state to be delusional. Wonderful. It's not going to change the fact that these are just examples of possible states in the scenario. Nothing more. Calling it delusional is not going to prevent it from being a possible state. Just accept it as a possible state, and move on.


THIS IS THE TRAP:

At 12:10 that is confirmed

Once again, you're imposing "confirmation" as an objective given when "confirmation" is completely subjective to the whomever is doing the confirming. You CANNOT communicate like this without running into traps.

This is why.
1. At 12:00pm, Subject 1 concludes that X is true. The term "confirm" is justification that compels the subject to his conclusion. We are not going to make any presumptions about how the subject made his confirmation. We're not going to cry about how it's impossible to see into the future. We're only going to discuss what we CAN say about the situation. What we CAN say, is that the subject did not use 'visual perception' as his method of confirmation.

2. At 12:10pm, Subject 2 concludes that X is true using 'visual perception' as his method of confirmation.

I am not imposing what I consider to be absurd or not. I am not making any presumptions that are going to lead me into distortion traps. What I will do is analyze what I can say about the givens above.

1. I CANNOT say how Subject 1 arrived at his conclusion, but I CAN say that he used a method of confirmation other than 'visual perception'. (This doesn't mean that his conclusion is correct or incorrect.)

2. While Subject 1 did not use 'visual perception' as his method of confirmation, Subject 2 did use 'visual perception' as his method of confirmation.

3. Delusion or no delusion, both subjects have 2 possible conclusions regarding the the phenomenon located at 12:10pm.
A. Team won game.
B. Team lost game.

4. Subjects conclusions have no effect on the actual state of the phenomenon.

All you are doing is saying that Subject 1 cannot have knowledge because he used a method of confirmation that YOU disagree with. Meanwhile Subject 2 can have knowledge because he used a method of confirmation that YOU agree with.


EDIT: It is impossible for this statement "At 12:10 that is confirmed" to have any intrinsic meaning. There are relevant factors that haven't been given:
1. What is the state of the phenomenon?
2. Where is the state of the phenomenon located in space/time.
3. What is the subject's conclusion?
4. Where is the subject located in space/time?

[jpappl]

Don't keep you fingers crossed too long - they may cramp.

I say that because despite the fact that your example is a good one and very clear, I seriously doubt he has what it takes to fully understand it.

Unfortunately based on his response, he doesn't.

[jpappl]

Lix,

So here are the possible states without throwing any tantrums.
-Team wins.
-After confirmation through visual perception, Subject 1 concludes they won.
-After confirmation through visual perception, Subject 2 concludes they lost.

Delusion or not, if you cannot accept that these are the 2 possible observer states without going into a fit about it, you will not be able to continue this discussion properly. Yes we all know that you consider the second state to be delusional. Wonderful. It's not going to change the fact that these are just examples of possible states in the scenario. Nothing more. Calling it delusional is not going to prevent it from being a possible state. Just accept it as a possible state, and move on.

There are not 2 possible states when the game is over. They either won or lost.

There are 2 possible states before the game is over at 12:00 and up to the game is over at 12:10.

EDIT: It is impossible for this statement "At 12:10 that is confirmed" to have any intrinsic meaning. There are relevant factors that haven't been given:
1. What is the state of the phenomenon?
2. Where is the state of the phenomenon located in space/time.
3. What is the subject's conclusion?
4. Where is the subject located in space/time?

At 12:10 the game is over and the team either won or lost.

That is all that is needed to answer the question.

Your claim that he had knowledge before the game is over amounts to seeing in the future.

But either you know this and are being evasive so you don't have to admit that you are wrong or you are not mentally capable of understanding a simple set of circumstances.

[lixluke]

I think a definition of KNOWLEDGE will be needed for a debate to take place. In fact it might settle the whole debate.

The definition of knowledge is the debate.

[lixluke]

Lix,



There are not 2 possible states when the game is over. They either won or lost.

There are 2 possible states before the game is over at 12:00 and up to the game is over at 12:10.



At 12:10 the game is over and the team either won or lost.

That is all that is needed to answer the question.

Your claim that he had knowledge before the game is over amounts to seeing in the future.

But either you know this and are being evasive so you don't have to admit that you are wrong or you are not mentally capable of understanding a simple set of circumstances.

Me being evasive is a baseless accusation which has nothing to do with the debate.

At 12:10, the team either won or lost. That is the state of the phenomenon including the location of the phenomenon in time.

The bit about seeing into the future is simply a presumption that doesn't affect the scenario. Whether it is possible or impossible for a subject to see into the future is not what is in question. All we can tell about YOUR scenario is that the subject arrived at a conclusion using a method of confirmation other than "visual perception". Did the subject see into a different location in time? Doesn't matter. His method doesn't affect the result of his method.


Once again, Proposition X = Team won game at 12:10.

1. This is all that matters at 12:00 (outside of the visual perception of phenomenon):
Did the subject conclude that X is true?
Does his conclusion correspond with the state of the proposition in actuality?

2. This is all that matters at 12:10 (within the visual perception of the phenomenon):
Did the subject conclude that X is true?
Does his conclusion correspond with the state of the proposition in actuality?

Can we establish that only difference that is a given between #1 and #2 is the method that the subject used to arrive at his conclusion? Or are we still stuck on crying about how it's impossible to see into the future?

[jpappl]

Lix,

Once again, Proposition X = Team won game at 12:10.

1. This is all that matters at 12:00 (outside of the visual perception of phenomenon):
Did the subject conclude that X is true?

2. This is all that matters at 12:10 (within the visual perception of the phenomenon):
Did the subject conclude that X is true?

Can we establish that only difference that is a given between #1 and #2 is the method that the subject used to arrive at his conclusion? Or are we still stuck on crying about how it's impossible to see into the future?

Wrong. Because you are basing everything on the presumption that the team did in fact win.

X states team will win game, at 12:00, at 12:10 team wins or
X states team will win game, at 12:00, at 12:10 team loses.

So in order for your understanding of knowledge to work, one must see into the future.

Because, no matter what he believes at 12:00, the game could end differently. So, unless he can see into the future, it is merely a guess.

You are twisting the event to always come out a win, and that is not the case. As you and I agree, the only part we agree on is that at 12:00 there are two possible outcomes, a win or a loss. At 12:10 we have a result.

Without being able to see into the future, he does not have knowledge of the outcome. Not until 12:10.

[lixluke]

SIMILAR SCENARIO
Now you tell me.

PROPOSITION X: At 12:10 team wins game.

GIVEN: X is true.
GIVEN: Subject 1 within visual perception of game concludes X is true.
GIVEN: Subject 2 within visual perception of game concludes X is false.
GIVEN: Subject 3 in box outside of visual perception of game concludes X is true.
GIVEN: Subject 4 in box outside of visual perception of game concludes X is true.

We can tell that 1 & 2 used visual perception as "confirmation" to arrive at their respective conclusions. We can tell that 3 & 4 did not use visual perception as "confirmation" to arrive at their respective conclusions.

Just like the previous scenario, we have subjects in diffent locations with respect to the phenomenon. Only this time, they are in different locations in space instead of time.

No crying about delusions, or impossible methods of confirmation. Those have nothing to do with the possibilities regarding the givens. The only questions:
Who has knowledge?
Who has misconception?

[jpappl]

Lix.

Let me take your example and break it down another way.

1. This is all that matters at 12:00 (outside of the visual perception of phenomenon):
Did the subject conclude that X is true?

= belief, game is not yet over.

2. This is all that matters at 12:10 (within the visual perception of the phenomenon):
Did the subject conclude that X is true?

= knowledge, the game is over and we have a result.

[jpappl]

SIMILAR SCENARIO
Now you tell me.

PROPOSITION X: At 12:10 team wins game.

GIVEN: X is true.
GIVEN: Subject 1 within visual perception of game concludes X is true.
GIVEN: Subject 2 within visual perception of game concludes X is false.
GIVEN: Subject 3 in box outside of visual perception of game concludes X is true.
GIVEN: Subject 4 in box outside of visual perception of game concludes X is true.

We can tell that 1 & 2 used visual perception as "confirmation" to arrive at their respective conclusions. We can tell that 3 & 4 did not use visual perception as "confirmation" to arrive at their respective conclusions.

Just like the previous scenario, we have subjects in diffent locations with respect to the phenomenon. Only this time, they are in different locations in space instead of time.

No crying about delusions, or impossible methods of confirmation. Those have nothing to do with the possibilities regarding the givens. The only questions:
Who has knowledge?
Who has misconception?

In your example, based only on the below:

PROPOSITION X: At 12:10 team wins game.

GIVEN: X is true.

GIVEN: Subject 1 within visual perception of game concludes X is true.

Has knowledge

GIVEN: Subject 2 within visual perception of game concludes X is false.

Has misconception

GIVEN: Subject 3 in box outside of visual perception of game concludes X is true

Not enough information to know. Did he see the score, how did he confirm team x won ?. Once confirmed he has knowledge. Otherwise he only has belief.


GIVEN: Subject 4 in box outside of visual perception of game concludes X is false

Not enough information to know. Did he see the score, how did he confirm team x won ?. Once confirmed he has misconception. Otherwise he only has belief.

[lixluke]

. Because you are basing everything on the presumption that the team did in fact win.

You're claiming that I made it a 'given' that Proposition X is true. When in fact, I DID NOT state whether or not the team wins at 12:10 as a "given". Even if I did, it wouldn't matter. Get a grip. If I simply pose it as a "GIVEN" that the team wins at 12:10, nothing changes about the questions. If you'd like, you can go over the same scenario by posing that the team lost as a "GIVEN". In fact, we can go over the scenario without stating any given regarding whether or not the team wins at 12:10 (which by the way is what I did).

Here is an exact quote where I DID NOT state any 'given' regarding the outcome of the event. (And even if I did, it would have no effect on the relevant questions described.)

Proposition X = Team won game at 12:10.

1. This is all that matters at 12:00 (outside of the visual perception of phenomenon):
Did the subject conclude that X is true?
Does his conclusion correspond with the state of the proposition in actuality?

2. This is all that matters at 12:10 (within the visual perception of the phenomenon):
Did the subject conclude that X is true?
Does his conclusion correspond with the state of the proposition in actuality?

Can we establish that only difference that is a given between #1 and #2 is the method that the subject used to arrive at his conclusion? Or are we still stuck on crying about how it's impossible to see into the future?

[jpappl]

SIMILAR SCENARIO
Now you tell me.

PROPOSITION X: At 12:10 team wins game.

GIVEN: X is true.
GIVEN: Subject 1 within visual perception of game concludes X is true.
GIVEN: Subject 2 within visual perception of game concludes X is false.
GIVEN: Subject 3 in box outside of visual perception of game concludes X is true.
GIVEN: Subject 4 in box outside of visual perception of game concludes X is true.

We can tell that 1 & 2 used visual perception as "confirmation" to arrive at their respective conclusions. We can tell that 3 & 4 did not use visual perception as "confirmation" to arrive at their respective conclusions.

Just like the previous scenario, we have subjects in diffent locations with respect to the phenomenon. Only this time, they are in different locations in space instead of time.

No crying about delusions, or impossible methods of confirmation. Those have nothing to do with the possibilities regarding the givens. The only questions:
Who has knowledge?
Who has misconception?

I have answered your changed scenario but stick my simple scenario because I can tell you want to muddy the waters.

In my scenario. X sees the game, he is there and witnessed it from 12:00 to 12:10. No other information is needed to answer my questions.

[jpappl]

(And even if I did, it would have no effect on the relevant questions described.)

I agree so once again your answer that he has knowledge at 12:00 in nonsense and amounts to seeing into the future.

X believes they will win and states so at 12:00.

Whether or not his team wins or loses, does he have knowledge at 12:00. Or is knowledge of the result unknown until 12:10 when the game is over ?

[jpappl]

One more question to make sure I understand you correctly.

Is it possible for him to have both knowledge and misconception at 12:00 ?

Please answer yes or no only please.

[lixluke]

I agree so once again your answer that he has knowledge at 12:00 in nonsense and amounts to seeing into the future.

X believes they will win and states so at 12:00.

Whether or not his team wins or loses, does he have knowledge at 12:00. Or is knowledge of the result unknown until 12:10 when the game is over ?

Incorrect. What you're doing is the typical trap of making YOUR personal idea of justification more relevant than another. The subject that abides by what YOU consider to be valid justification (visual perception) has knowledge while the subject that YOU CONSIDER to be using an absurd form of justification doesn't. This subjectification of justification can easily be shown to lead to turning subjective beliefs into givens like a religion.

In your example, based only on the below:

PROPOSITION X: At 12:10 team wins game.

GIVEN: X is true.

GIVEN: Subject 1 within visual perception of game concludes X is true.

Has knowledge

GIVEN: Subject 2 within visual perception of game concludes X is false.

Has misconception

GIVEN: Subject 3 in box outside of visual perception of game concludes X is true

Not enough information to know. Did he see the score, how did he confirm team x won ?. Once confirmed he has knowledge. Otherwise he only has belief.


GIVEN: Subject 4 in box outside of visual perception of game concludes X is false

Not enough information to know. Did he see the score, how did he confirm team x won ?. Once confirmed he has misconception. Otherwise he only has belief.

All you've been doing in both scenarios is making it a necessity for "visual perception" to be used by the subject as his method of justification in order to possess knowledge or misconception. What happens when you do this is turn beliefs into givens. This is the whole reason why the rules of knowledge must be explained. Because people are imposing their ideas of justification like a religion.

Here is a clear example of 2 conflicting methods of justification:

Consider proposition X: There is a golf ball in the box.

Subject 1 looks into the box, and sees a golf ball in there. He also feels it. Thus, he concludes X is true. His method of verification is visual perception (and feeling it up).

Subject 2 goes to sleep, and dreams that there is a golf ball in the box. Thus, he concludes that X is true. His method of verification is his dream.

They both consider one another's conclusive determinations to be correct. However, Subject 1 says that Subject 2 has not verified there is a ball in the box. Subject 2 says that Subject 1 has not verified there is a ball in the box.

If there is indeed a ball in the box, then both of their conclusions are correct. If there is indeed no ball in the box, then both of their conclusions are incorrect. So what has really occurred?

Both of them used what they consider to be verification to arrive at their conclusion. Both of them claim to have verified knowledge that there is a golf ball in the box.

This goes for any conclusion that anybody arrives at. Whatever material compelled a subject to his conclusion, that material, from that subject's frame of reference, is verification.

It's impossible for me or anybody to say something like:
"Subject has arrived at a conclusion that X is true, but has not verified/determined whether or not X is true."

The only way I would make such a statement is if I religiously believe that what I consider to be "verification" is what everybody, including the subject, considers to be verification. Of course, this cannot be the case.

Thus, the proper statement would be:
"Subject arrived at a conclusion that X is true, but has used a method of verification that I consider to be unacceptable."

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...6&postcount=60

[jpappl]

Lix,

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
I agree so once again your answer that he has knowledge at 12:00 in nonsense and amounts to seeing into the future.

X believes they will win and states so at 12:00.

Whether or not his team wins or loses, does he have knowledge at 12:00. Or is knowledge of the result unknown until 12:10 when the game is over ? ”

Incorrect. What you're doing is the typical trap of making YOUR personal idea of justification more relevant than another. The subject that abides by what YOU consider to be valid justification (visual perception) has knowledge while the subject that YOU CONSIDER to be using an absurd form of justification doesn't. This subjectification of justification can easily be shown to lead to turning subjective beliefs into givens like a religion

Like I expected, once cornered you cower, like always Lix. Just face it, you a chickens8t who can't take being wrong.

Instead of answering, you accuse me of changing the rules or applying all sorts of subjectiveness to the scenario.

The game being over is not open to being subjective. That is why they play the game, to determine a winner.

It has already been made clear many times that X witnessed the game and at 12:00 he states his team will win. At 12:10 no matter what the result, did he have knowledge at 12:00 of the result of the game.

I can not make it more clear.

Do not create anymore scenarios, answer the first one to it's completion.

I ask again these questions. You have now been informed once again of the situation and that X is there at the game at 12:00 and witnesses the game to it's finale at 12:10.

So once again you snibbling little jellyfish.

X believes they will win and states so at 12:00. He is there and witnesses the entire game from start to finish.

Whether or not his team wins or loses, does he have knowledge at 12:00. Or is knowledge of the result unknown until 12:10 when the game is over ?

and

Is it possible for him to have both knowledge and misconception at 12:00 ?

Please answer with a brief clear sentence and or yes or no.

[lixluke]

One more question to make sure I understand you correctly.

Is it possible for him to have both knowledge and misconception at 12:00 ?

Please answer yes or no only please.

No. It isn't. At 12:00, his belief is either knowledge or misconception. It has nothing to do with whether or not he 'visually perceives' the phenomenon located at 12:10. At 12:10, it doesn't matter if there is any subject to observe. The proposition exists as either true or false whether there is anybody to preceive/observe it or not.

"It hasn't happened yet." has no relevance. At that particular location in time that phenomenon exists in a particular state no matter where in space/time any subject may be located.

[Doreen]

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 decide using whatever criteria YOU use. This is the point that everyone is missing. You are under no constraint to believe what they say. But if you decide they are correct LL wants you to call it knowledge.

I believe he has said that justification is not an issue, but truth is. So it is a TB. And you are free to verify in your way.

Get it?