Belief/evidence

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I completely agree with you, which is why I followed with:

"So now answer me this. How does one arrive at whether it is considered knowledge or misconception ?"

And he proceeded to fail once again. I agree with you on the justification part. He as you know is making the leap to knowledge without justification.

I was hoping that he would add that you have to have evidence/justification for why it is true or false. Thus I asked the follow up question in hopes of having him validate the need for justification.

He doesn't understand that if given the choice of a.b.c.d you guess "c" and get the question correct that does not mean you have knowledge even though you got the answer right.

He followed with a statement that it didn't matter how one came to the conclusion as long as they believed it was true, which was a statement of belief. I tried to play along with the simple answers to fish for the follow up. Justification for it to be knowledge. It appears there is no way of getting through.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I was confused by your poor grammar.

It doesn't matter whether or not you said anything about hallucinations; I did.

I have no idea what you were attempting to state. Your writing is as commensurably confused as your thinking is.

You continue to misunderstand even the most basic concepts involved on the issues being discussed in this thread, which is why I directed you to the Encyclopedia link. Do you not even realize that for your position to come close to being reasonable that you must explicate it such that it is clear? Do you not realize that you must also deal with the criticisms others graciously point out to you, and that refusing to do so cannot make you 'right'?

Sad.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Aha

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Apologies for missing the gameplan. There was I, obviously banging head repeatedly against the front door, and here are you, subtley sneaking up to the back door, only to find it bricked up as well!

 

LOL. Apparently his fortress is inpenetratable.

 

Either way, scientists or not, the observer arrives at a conclusion that something is true. Whether based on science or not, it is a belief, and must be considered as knowledge by the observer.

I did not follow with that. I didn't even state that per say. I stated from the beginning that the method was irrelevant to whether or not the individual arrived at a conclusion that X is true. I did not say as long as they believed the conclusion was true. Again, you misinterpret what I clearly wrote down. The observer concludes X to be true. This is a belief.

Justification, verification, and any other things are just method of arriving at a conclusion that X is true, and/or proving that conclusion to others. Either way, it is still a conclusion that X is true.

A conclusion that X is true in actuality = A claim of being in the state of knowledge that X is true = A state of belief that X is true in actuality. It does not necessarily mean that X is true in actuality. It does not necessarily = A state of knowledge that X is true.

 

So, you can't consider it to "perhaps" be true knowledge, it has to be true or false? No ands ifs or buts?

I guess, but if you're hallucinating it might be (there is a possibility that you will conclude X is true because it's false, isn't there?).

I see. So you don't have to "consider it's true knowledge", after all?

If you go and sit in a cave, are you truly "in a cave"? Or are you just removing certain external experiences (the sun, the wind, the sky, certain sounds etc)? What if you start hallucinating that these 'external experiences' are still happening? What would you do to fit the hallucinations into your worldview?

 

Guess again. If you conclude something is true, it doesn't matter if you're hallucinating or not. You conclude it is true. What is so hard to understand about somebody concuding something is true? I can conclude X is true. Any time somebody concludes something is true, they, by default, must claim knowledge that it is true.

I conclude X to be true. I could be hallucinating. I could be out of my mind. I could use all the history of science and peer review logic and evidence. It doesn't matter. The obverver has personally concluded something to be true. Can you not get past the fact that everything is irrelevant other than the fact that the observer concludedes something to be true. This goes for all humans on the face of the earth. Everything you claim to know to be true, whether you are hallucinating or whatever. You, as an observer, arrive at the conclusion that something is true.

If somebody arrives at a conclusion that something is true, the method does not change the fact that the person arrived to that conclusion. The fact that the person was hallucinating does not change the fact that he arrived to that conclusion. The fact that he used the greatest scientific method ever doesn't change the fact that the person arrived to the conclusion. Get off of the method, and move foreward. Method/justification/evidence/hallucination are all irrelevant to whether or not that person arrived to a concluson that something is true. I have repeated this over and over, and you do not seem to get the fact that the method at which the person arrives at the conclusion changes nothing. Whether it is true of false. Whether he hallucinated or used science. That person concludes it to be true.

You conclude that it is true you have an apple in your hand. Hallucination, science, justification, or any method you used to arrive at that conclusion does not change the fact that you conclude that it is true tha you have an apple in your hand.

 

Start with the 'apple'.
How do you conclude that there's one of these 'apple' things in your 'hand'? What happens?
Is the conclusion some sort of absolute? "There is an apple", or "there is no apple"? How do you tell it's an apple? What if it's a fake apple made of wax or something?

None of this is relevant, the only relevant thing is that someone concludes either: "there is an apple", or: "there is no apple"? If the apple is cut in half, and you have 'half an apple', what happens to: "I have an apple in my hand"?

 

It doesn't matter. The person did not conclude it was a fake apple. The person concluded there was an apple in their hand. Do you not understand that the person arrived at a conclusion? Do you not understand that the method the person arrived at the conclusion is irrelevant to whether or not the person concluded there was an apple?

Everything somebody concludes to be true is nothing more and nothing less. Why can't you move past that? The person arrives at a conclusion that X is true. That is it. Who cares if the person was hallucinating or used the most advanced methods of deduction. Either way, the person arrived to the conclusion that X is true. It does not matter if is a hallucination.

It does not matter if the apple is fake, if there is half an apple, or if there is no apple. The person concluded that it is true an apple is in his hand. What is your issue with that?

 

Does knowledge require justification ?

 

Who cares, is generally every other observer, if you count the person who believes they have an apple as an observer, then generally they are an individual member of a group of observers. Generally the group is who cares about conclusions of its individual members.

My issue with that, is that the conclusion is possibly incorrect.

The observer's conclusion is open to debate. A group of observers might come to a completely different conclusion. Unless the observer and their apple never encounter another observer, ever again. In that case there is no debate, no further conclusions, just an observer all by themselves, with an apple to keep them company (which they have concluded must also exist, but this has nothing to do with anyone else).

 

Did you not read my posts? Knowledge is nothing by a belief that corresponds to truth. Justification is another method of attaining/proving a belief.

Belief = A conclusion that something is true. Justification is a method of attaining/proving a conclusion that something is true.

 

All irrelevant. It makes no difference from countless posts I have been saying that the obsever arrived at conclusion that X is true. Nobody is talking about anything else other than that. Everybody is an observer. Everybody has an entire set of everything they as individual observers have concluded to be true. I conclude that I am in front of my computer. I conclude that the earth goes around the sun. I conclude that 1+1=2. These are my conclusions. Everybody else has their own conclusion.

An observer conclusion that something is true has no relevance to anything else you keep yammering about. The observer concluded that X is true. So what if X really isn't true? Who cares what every other observer says? Who cares if he used science to arrive at his conclusion? Who cares if he is halluncinating? All irrelevant. The point is that the obsever arrived at a conclusion that X is true. This discussion in knowledge is based on just that only.

 

Yes I have read your posts. Which is why I am asking the question.

I'll ask the question again. Please respond with yes or no and elaborate if you must.

Does knowledge require justification ?

 

Why? What is so confusing about it? Everything follows logic.

Knowledge requires only a belief that corresponds to truth. It does not require justificaiton or any "term" used to arrive at a belief.

 

Ok. Thank you.

So can knowledge be obtained before an event occurs ?

Yes or no with elaboration if needed.

 

I have explained this many many times. The only event is that the observer arrives at a conclusion that something is true. That is the event. No other event. No knowledge. No nothing. There is only the fact that the observer either arrived at a conclusion or didn't. If the observer has not arrived at a conclusion on a matter, there is no event. The event occurs when the observer arrives at a conclusion. Observer concludes that X is true. Observer concludes there is an apple in his hand. Nothing else to it. There is no event necessary. The observer says "I know it is true that an apple is in my hand". A conclusion of that X is true = A claim of knowledge that X is true = Belief. No more events before and after the situation. Why would you imply in everything I have written that any other event would occur after I repeated myself a million times that everything else is irrelevant?

 

Lix,

Try again please.

Yes or no with elaboration if needed. Thank you.

Can knowledge be obtained before an event occurs ?

 

You cannot have knowledge unless you have concluded something to be true, and it is true. That is it. What more do you need?