Justification is not a requirement for knowledge.

**Doreen** · 01-13-10, 05:01 PM

Look guys,
I know you disagree with LL on what should be called knowledge.
I also think I have at least some understanding and support for why you do not what to change the definition to TB as opposed to JTB. But I also think there is some merit to LL's position.
Setting aside who is at fault or to what degree for the miscommunication
when I came to this thread I noticed that people were not arguing with LL's actual position. They were making assumptions about it and the implications of it that were not correct.

**lixluke** · 01-13-10, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by jpappl

Lix,

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.

First of all, I didn't say you were chainging the rules. I stated that your subjectification of "justification" is getting in the way of proper analysis of the scenario. In other words, you are imposing your own preconceived ideas about what is necessary in order for something to be considered justification onto a generic subject in a generic scenario.

So since it is IMPOSSIBLE, considering your givens, to provide a yes/no answer, I can list down what is possible for me to tell about your scenario:
1. Subject X makes a conclusion at 12:00 that the team will win. (Given).
2. Subject X must claim to know that the team will win. Therefore, Subject X doesn't consider the outcome of the game to be unknown.
3. Whether or not the team wins at 12:10 has not been given by the author of the scenario.
4. Subject X's belief at 12:00 MUST be either knowledge or misconception.
5. Because the outcome of the game hasn't been 'given' by the author of the scenario, it is IMPOSSIBLE to say whether Subject X possesses knowledge or misconception.
6. It is not possible for anybody at any time to have both knowledge and misconception at the same time.
7. It is impossible for Subject X's location in time and space to have any effect on whether nor not the subject possesses knowledge. It makes no difference whether the subject is at 12:00, 12:10, in a box somewhere on the other side of the planet, or in the audience.

**lixluke** · 01-13-10, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by Doreen

They were making assumptions about it and the implications of it that were not correct.

No kidding. This is the whole effect of what happens when you misinterpret what knowledge is really about, and base it on justification. Distortion.

**jpappl** · 01-13-10, 05:07 PM

Doreen,

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
If so, than what happens at 12:10 when the game ends and there is a winner. The bottom line is, that one of the two above is wrong and we won't know until 12:10 no matter how many times you have guessed correctly in the past. ”

In a sense there are two beliefs at issue:

X will win.
Prediction guy Y can predict the outcomes of sporting events.

Yes beliefs. Are beliefs knowledge ?

I am not talking about justifications for the belief in why one team may win. I am asking does he have knowledge at 12:00.

If yes, then you are also saying he can see into the future.

The game can change in a moment. I have seen games change in the last seconds.

So up until 12:10 when the game in fact is over he does not know who won. He does not have knowledge of the outcome.

Once again, can we have knowledge and misconception at the same time ?

If not, then you are contradicting yourself.

At 12:10 and only at 12:10 can we call his belief at 12:00 that his team will win, knowledge or misconception.

**lixluke** · 01-13-10, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Wrong again.
As you yourself said:

But at 12:00 the actuality hasn't happened - it does NOT EXIST AT 12:00, and is therefore unknown and unknowable and unprovable.

What are you talking about? I never said that. Here it is completely clear:

Originally Posted by lixluke

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.

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

**Doreen** · 01-13-10, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

No you miss my point (I think).
Of course I can tell someone their TBs are not knowledge, because my method of proving what is real shows ME that what they call real isn't.
I could (pushing it to extremes) be so deluded (there's got to be a "better" word

) that I can deny, for example, that it rained today because MY verification methods say that it didn't.

Yes, you could. But this is no change from a JTB schema. If you are denying it rained, you'd still be denying it rained.

Again. You don't have to change how you come to knowledge. It is how you deal with people who have other justification processes, including those whom you consider lacking in these.

Yes, rain is probably a poor example: how about god? Sub-atomic particles? The existence of, say, Borneo? (Never been, never seen it, don't know anyone who claims to have been there: the maps in atlases are propaganda...).
9/11 conspiracies? Elvis is dead?

Well, you are talking to the wrong person for a couple of these.

**lixluke** · 01-13-10, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Isn't justification a method of finding the truth? Of determining whether something is true or not?
So if I choose my own method of justification (dreams..) then I am free to deny what YOU call truth because I haven't dreamed it.

The method of justification is ALWAYS chosen by the subject. Whether you like it or not, you chose what you consider to be necessary in order for something to be justification.

**Dywyddyr** · 01-13-10, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by Doreen

Yes, you could. But this is no change from a JTB schema. If you are denying it rained, you'd still be denying it rained.

And I'd be claiming that others didn't have knowledge, but misconception, since they claim it DID rain.
In other words each individual's reality is strictly their own.

Again. You don't have to change how you come to knowledge.

No, it defines what knowledge is: we disagree on what is true. It leaves everyone with belief, not TB nor JTB. There is no truth, except that chosen by each of us.

Originally Posted by lixluke

The method of justification is ALWAYS chosen by the subject. Whether you like it or not, you chose what you consider to be necessary in order for something to be justification.

So we all have differing realities, since our methods of proving what is true gives us (can give us) different truths.

**Doreen** · 01-13-10, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by jpappl

Doreen,
Yes beliefs. Are beliefs knowledge ?

He is saying, yes, if they are T.

I am not talking about justifications for the belief in why one team may win. I am asking does he have knowledge at 12:00.

I understand. He wants that belief in that instance to be considered knowledge. To set aside the justification criterion. And actually I can see how this would be useful, though I would prefer he advocates this himself once we all get clear on his position. I can also see how it is problematic. But most losses I can see clear up.

If yes, then you are also saying he can see into the future.

Or that he saw into the future on that instance. Or the game was fixed. Or he is a great read of the emotional state of one team's absolute key player, think Michael Jorden. Or....? But this all gets bracketed off. We do not have to decide this. If he decides from this one instance that he can see the future this will or will not turn out to be a TB.

Once again, can we have knowledge and misconception at the same time ?

JTB does not avoid this. Check the Gettier problems. But even more common this happens all the time. People can even have peer reviewed conclusions that some time later get contradicted and an unseen flaw is found - correlation taken as cause for example.

If not, then you are contradicting yourself.

Well then so are scientists. Knowledge already can turn out to be incorrect and based on misconception.

**lixluke** · 01-13-10, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

In other words each individual's reality is strictly their own.

No, but almost. Each individual's observation of actuality is their own. Each individual's belief is their own. Everybody's reality is the same. Different subject come to different conclusions about reality.

**jpappl** · 01-13-10, 05:25 PM

Lix,

So since it is IMPOSSIBLE, considering your givens, to provide a yes/no answer

It's only impossible for you to give a yes or no answer

1. Subject X makes a conclusion at 12:00 that the team will win. (Given).

He has a belief they will win.

2. Subject X must claim to know that the team will win. Therefore, Subject X doesn't consider the outcome of the game to be unknown.

No, he doesn't he can only believe they will win. He doesn't need to claim to know. You are the only one making that assertion.

3. Whether or not the team wins at 12:10 has not been given by the author of the scenario.

It doesn't matter. The question is for 12:00. The outcome of the game can not be determined until 12:10. So once again he does not have knowledge or misconception either way until 12:10

4. Subject X's belief at 12:00 MUST be either knowledge or misconception

No, it becomes either knowledge or misconception at 12:10. It can only be a belief at 12:00

5. Because the outcome of the game hasn't been 'given' by the author of the scenario, it is IMPOSSIBLE to say whether Subject X possesses knowledge or misconception.

Which proves me correct. It is impossible to say that he has knowledge or misconception at 12:00. Because the outcome is unknown. Argument over, I win.

6. It is not possible for anybody at any time to have both knowledge and misconception at the same time.

Correct. Proving me correct again. He can't have knowledge at 12:00 if the team loses. Which is one of the possibilities. All he can have is a belief.

7. It is impossible for Subject X's location in time and space to have any effect on whether nor not the subject possesses knowledge. It makes no difference whether the subject is at 12:00, 12:10, in a box somewhere on the other side of the planet, or in the audience

Dribble. His location is known as presented many times, he is there watching the game, he knows the score at 12:00 and he knows the outcome when it is over at 12:10

Now you understand that it is impossible for him to have knowledge of the outcome of the game until 12:10.

He does in fact not have knowledge at 12:00.

Whew.

**lixluke** · 01-13-10, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by jpappl

This is very first time I have seen you properly state what it is "his belief" but then you muck it up by saying it IS either knowledge or misconception.

One of the dilemmas of misdefining knowledge is the idea that knowledge and belief are separate. Knowledge is a type of belief. Belief cannot exist alone without 2 possible attributes. Either the belief is knowledge, or it is misconception. This has been made clear since the OP. Every belief MUST be either knowledge or misconception.

**Dywyddyr** · 01-13-10, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by lixluke

Everybody's reality is the same. Different subject come to different conclusions about reality.

If reality is actually the same* for everyone then anyone having a different conclusion is under a misconception.
But they can still claim they have justified their belief, i.e. proven it.
Which shows that justification methods count since some methods are obviously faulty.
Back to the maths home work again: show your working to prove it's not a lucky guess if you're right or so that it can be seen where you went wrong if you're under a misconception.

* Assuming that's not just a supposition.

**lixluke** · 01-13-10, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by jpappl

Lix,

It's only impossible for you to give a yes or no answer

He has a belief they will win.

No, he doesn't he can only believe they will win. He doesn't need to claim to know. You are the only one making that assertion.

It doesn't matter. The question is for 12:00. The outcome of the game can not be determined until 12:10. So once again he does not have knowledge or misconception either way until 12:10

No, it becomes either knowledge or misconception at 12:10. It can only be a belief at 12:00

Which proves me correct. It is impossible to say that he has knowledge or misconception at 12:00. Because the outcome is unknown. Argument over, I win.

Correct. Proving me correct again. He can't have knowledge at 12:00 if the team loses. Which is one of the possibilities. All he can have is a belief.

Dribble. His location is known as presented many times, he is there watching the game, he knows the score at 12:00 and he knows the outcome when it is over at 12:10

Now you understand that it is impossible for him to have knowledge of the outcome of the game until 12:10.

He does in fact not have knowledge at 12:00.

Whew.

Wrong. You are intentionally distorting what I am saying, and taking it completely out of context for your convenience without regard to proper discussion proceedures. You are imposing meanings into my statements that don't exist. For what?

In order for anybody to answer the yes/no question regarding whether or not the subject possesses knowledge at 12:00, the author MUST 'give' the result at 12:10. If the outcome at 12:10 corresponds to the subject's belief at 12:00, then the subject has knowledge at 12:00.

Hence:
5. Because the outcome of the game hasn't been 'given' by the author of the scenario, it is IMPOSSIBLE to say whether Subject X possesses knowledge or misconception.

I NEVER said that it is impossible to answer the question about whether or not the subject at 12:00 has knowledge if the outcome at 12:10 is given.

If a subject believes that X is true, the subject MUST claim to know that X is true. The subject CANNOT consider the the question of whether or not X is true to be unkown.

**jpappl** · 01-13-10, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by lixluke

One of the dilemmas of misdefining knowledge is the idea that knowledge and belief are separate. Knowledge is a type of belief. Belief cannot exist alone without 2 possible attributes. Either the belief is knowledge, or it is misconception. This has been made clear since the OP. Every belief MUST be either knowledge or misconception.

Not so. This is the problem I have with how you have viewed the scenario I offered.

I wanted to get to a base position, one that was not subjective and one that had a finale to it.

I could believe something that may not be proven true or false until long after I am gone. I understand that at some point it could or may be proven one way or the other.

And in some cases it's only sometimes true and sometimes false.

Like cats don't like water for example. If some cat's do, then we have a dilemma.

But in my example it had a answer that was not subjective and was clearly laid out.

I wanted to understand if you felt a belief now, is considered knowledge now, when it is not proven by whatever means until later.

Otherwise you are categorically saying that ones belief that something is true is the same as knowledge always. There is a reason we have separate meaning of the words, belief, knowledge and misconception.

So that we can use the proper term for the given instance.

In the scenario I laid out. There is no way to know what the outcome would be until 12:10 so it can't be knowledge at 12:00.

12:00 belief we will win
12:10 knowlege or misconception. The confirmation or justification of which is the game ending and a winner determined.

**Doreen** · 01-13-10, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

And I'd be claiming that others didn't have knowledge, but misconception, since they claim it DID rain.

Right. But you are making it seem like the new schema causes a new problem. But in both you would be saying they are wrong. JTB or TB. You are denying T in both cases.

No, it defines what knowledge is: we disagree on what is true. It leaves everyone with belief, not TB nor JTB. There is no truth, except that chosen by each of us.

No, you get to decide what is true. I mean the guy who denies it rained, and there are such guys, are not convinced now.

So we all have differing realities, since our methods of proving what is true gives us (can give us) different truths.

Which is the case out there already. You and other engineers, if I have that right, can continue to justify however you like. And you can continue to verify however you like. It is the way you label true beliefs that changes. That is it. You do not have to trust the dreamers skill. You do not have to take on his methodology.

**jpappl** · 01-13-10, 05:44 PM

Lix,

In order for anybody to answer the yes/no question regarding whether or not the subject possesses knowledge at 12:00, the author MUST 'give' the result at 12:10. If the outcome at 12:10 corresponds to the subject's belief at 12:00, then the subject has knowledge at 12:00

Not so.

In your own words above you are admitting that you can not say that the person has knowledge at 12:00. Because the outcome is not known.

I win.

12:00 to 12:09.59 it is merely a belief.
Not until 12:10 is the outcome known, ie knowledge.

Concede.

**lixluke** · 01-13-10, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by jpappl

Not so. This is the problem I have with how you have viewed the scenario I offered.

I wanted to get to a base position, one that was not subjective and one that had a finale to it.

I could believe something that may not be proven true or false until long after I am gone. I understand that at some point it could or may be proven one way or the other.

And in some cases it's only sometimes true and sometimes false.

Like cats don't like water for example. If some cat's do, then we have a dilemma.

But in my example it had a answer that was not subjective and was clearly laid out.

I wanted to understand if you felt a belief now, is considered knowledge now, when it is not proven by whatever means until later.

Otherwise you are categorically saying that ones belief that something is true is the same as knowledge always. There is a reason we have separate meaning of the words, belief, knowledge and misconception.

So that we can use the proper term for the given instance.

In the scenario I laid out. There is no way to know what the outcome would be until 12:10 so it can be knowledge at 12:00.

12:00 belief we will win
12:10 knowlege or misconception. The confirmation or justification of which is the game ending and a winner determined.

No because your imposing ideas into my model that don't belong there. If you cannot understand the model I'm describing, you cannot debate it.

1. It needs to be established that a "belief" is a conclusion. A belief CANNOT be inconclusion. A subject's belief is their claim of knowledge. If a subject claims to know for a fact that X is true, the subject possesses the belief that X is true.

If you watch the the game, and conclude that the team wins, you possess the "belief" that the team wins.

If you use the sceintific method to come to a conclusion that the earth is not flat, then you "believe" that the earth is not flat.

"I don't know for sure." is not a belief.
"I believe X is true, but inconclusive." is not a belief.
"I am completely certain that X is true." is a belief.

**lixluke** · 01-13-10, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by jpappl

In your own words above you are admitting that you can not say that the person has knowledge at 12:00. Because the outcome is not known.

No you're completely distorting what I'm saying. What I am saying is that statement such as "the outcome is not known" have absolutely no meaning. I stated that the outcome wasn't given by the author. Thus, I personally cannot tell whether or not Subject X possesses knowledge. But I can tell that he either does possess knowledge or misconception.