Is knowledge something you have...

Very good point.

One could very well program the computer to produce results that always will agree with you.

This is why 'luke is incorrect when he says:

Justification, by definition, must be publicly established; this is the criterion of verification.
Else, the solipsist can be correct..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I used the computer example to be on the extreme side. But I think we should notice how much verification of knowledge is society is like this. I am actually interested to see what people say about what a belief/item of knowledge is, ontologically, and how we determine that it really is knowledge.

I once took an existentialism in literature class at uni. It was taught by a philosopher and not a lit person. I remember doing rather well on a test where I simply remembered what he had said certain things were and wrote these down. For a number of them I hadn't the slightest idea what I was saying. I believe I nailed some answers applying Heidigger's vocabulary to some short story. It might as well have been Navaho I was writing down.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, the first seems much more problematic than the second. I believe you are Canadian. Even so bureaucratic errors coupled with your parents coming to believe the paper over their memories - I mean Mom can be easily excused for errors of memory especially if you were number 4.

The second is vulnerable to altered states such as dreaming. Of course, you no doubt have criteria for distinguishing, but these could be dreamt into seeming more clear than they are.

I can't see either as 100% - even for you, of course.

Interesting. A concrete example?

I can't see the answer in 50. Beliefs mirror thoughts. So it is not a version of correspondence theory, or?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Always bringing ethics in aren't you?

What verb would you use?

You really did not have an experience upon reading about the guy inserting a straw in his penis as far as he could?

As opposed to.

Wait. Originally you answered 'verification' to

Here you are verifying your own belief.

And I am sure you won't, me playing on the other sense of 'follow'. I'll save that. We'd suddenly have another thread.

 

In order to understand what's going on, it is important to understand there is a clear cut difference between a subject's claim of knowledge and a subject's actual posession of knowledge.

EDIT: Because truth is independent of the observer, the subject is capable of misconception. This means that regardless of what a subject claims to know or not know, it has no effect on whether the subject actually does or doesn't know.

In the case of knowledge, the only 'how' is the 'how does the subject arrive at a conclusion?'. Whatever material the subject uses to arrive at the conclusion is the only 'how' involved. Once a subject arrives at a conclusion, his conclusion can ONLY be either knowledge or misconception.

Logically speaking, no matter what, a subject MUST consider his conclusion knowledge. If I conclude that X is true, I impossible for me to consider my conclusion to be a misconception.

1. Any material that compels a subjust to a conclusion that X is true is, according to that particular subject, justification (evidence/proof/verification) that X is true.

2. The subject MUST claim knowledge for all propositions he has concluded to be true.

3. Logically speaking, the question of "How does a subject know he knows X is true?" simply has no validity. If a subject must consider everything he has concluded to be true as knowledge, then any material that compels a subject to conclusion must, in relation to the subject, be the 'how'.

No. Computers cannot be compeled to a conclusion. Linguistically however, the statement "the computer knows the answer" simply means that the computer can give us the answer.

 

I was asking how YOU would know someone else has knowledge, not what is the situation where they have knowledge.

OK. so in the example earlier, in my response to Glaucon, I mentioned me coming up with correct answers, answers I did not understand.

Or the person who believes that goats eat grass, and is correct, but each time he asserts this, he is thinking of sheep.

 

Because truth is independent of the observer, the subject is capable of misconception. This means that regardless of what a subject claims to know or not know, it has no effect on whether the subject actually does or doesn't know.

As stated, the only 'how' involved is 'how' of 'what material compelled the subject to arrive at a conclusion on the proposition'. In the case of your question:

"How would I know if somebody has knowledge". This can be stated as:
Subject A believes Proposition Y is true. Whereas proposition Y is "Subject B possesses knowedge that proposition X is true."

In other words: I claim to know that somebody knows that X is true. Because truth is independent of me even though I claim that Y is true, it has not effect on whether or not Y is true in actuality.

It's as simple as this: In actuality, X is either true or false. I have concluded that X is true. Therefore, I will say that I possess knowledge that X is true. If Subject B has concluded X is false, he will say that I don't possess knowledge. He will say that instead, I possess misconception.



In regards to the matter of goats and sheep. Your assertion has nothing to do with your belief.
If X is true in actuality, then you only possess knowledge if you possess the belief that X is true. Whatever it is that comes out of your mouth is irrelevant.

 

I still don't think you are getting it. Someone says they know evolutionary theory. How would you figure out whether you believed them or not?

OK. Then if I answers questions on a test and regurgitate answers I have heard, but do not really understand, do I have knowledge?

I have the correct belief 'in my brain'.
I place the correct phrase on paper or answer verbally when asked.

I am proud of my knowledge, but I really don't understand what I mean.

Also there is practical knowledge. I think I know how to fix a carburator. The facts in my brain are correct. I can give correct answers, but much later it turns out I cannot use this information (correctly). Did I know how to fix a carburator?

 

Let me first make it clear that practical knowledge (skills/abilities) is a totally different entity from knowledge being discussed here. Propositional knowledge. (Knowledge regarding the t/f state of a proposition). It's like comparing a roadblock and a cube block. You can call them both blocks, but you're discussing 2 completely different entities.

Let's make it a given that X is true.
The exam asks whether or not X is true.
You write down that X is true.

It doesn't matter. The question is whether or not you, from your perspective, consider X to be true. Regardless of what an exam is or regardless of what the subject answers in an exam, does the subject believe that X is true?

Now to the question of how somebody becomes aware of whether or not they believe something is true. That is a psychological question dependent on the person. It can't be answered in general.

Now let's say that you do believe X is true, and are aware of it. In terms of knowledge, does it matter if you are aware of why you have this belief? Why is it that I believe that X is true? It doesn't matter. You may have an idea of what it is that compelled you to arrive at the conclusion that X is true. Or you may have no clue what it was that compelled you to arrive at the conclusion that X is true. The only thing relevant is that for whatever reason, you possess the belief that X is true. Thus, if X is true in actuality, then you indeed possess knowledge that X is true.

EDIT: And you can use any example to support these facts. Take the belief that the Earth is round (sphere, not flat, however you want to call it).

It doesn't matter how I came to believe that. It doesn't matter why I believe that. If I possess the belief that the Earth is round. Whether or not I'm aware of what it was that compelled me to that conclusion, as long as the Earth is, in actuality, round, I possess knowledge.

 

I don't think it is that simple to differentiate. Whenever we test someone's knowledge we test them on 'doing'.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

How do you decide someone else knows something or not?

Now to the question of how somebody becomes aware of whether or not they believe something is true. That is a psychological question dependent on the person. It can't be answered in general.

I believe you have said all this before, but it is not directly relevent to what I asked you. You could also answers the question in the OP and we could work with those answers.

So if I have the words in my brain - the earth is round - but every time I picture the earth I see an oblate spheroid, do I have knowledge or not?

But since you keep focusing on this point, can you tell me what knowledge is, then? Ontologically.

 

Not the same type of knowledge. Propositional knowledge is only about propositional conclusions of true and false. Just because it's the same word doesn't mean it's the same thing. It's just as different as apples and orangutans.

To further elaborate:
"Knowledge" regarding skills, abilities, action etc has nothing to do with "knowledge" regarding propositions.

In the case of propositional knowledge. Knowledge is about t/f propositions. There is an infinite set of possible t/f propositions. Of that set, we possess a scope of t/f propositions within our awareness. Like a list of t/f statements. Knowledge is about our position regarding each line item on this list.

Knowledge is a type of belief. There are 2 types of beliefs. Knowledge and misconception. Knowledge is specifically a subject's belief that coincides with actuality.

All propositions are either true or false.

A subject's conclusion on a proposition is that subject's belief.

If the subject's belief coincides with actuality, then the subject's belief is knowledge. If the subject's belief doesn't coincide with actuality, then the subject's belief is misconception.

Thus:
*If subject believes X is true, and X is true in actuality, then subject possesses knowledge.

*If subject believes X is true, and X is not true in actuality, the subject does not possess knowledge. Subject possesses misconception.

 

I disagree. You do not need a mind to have the kind of bare propositional knowledge you are talking about. It is merely having a correct proposition. Computers can do this, as I pointed out earlier.

'coincides'? How? What do you mean by reality?

So subjects always know what they believe?

And you still haven't answered how you decide someone else has knowledge? Is production of the correct proposition enough? If so, how do you know they are not a Turing device? If not, what added criteria do you have?

 

All of your questions are answered at the end of the post.


It's that simple: Belief = Actuality => Knowledge. What aren't you getting?
*If X is true and if the subject believes X is true, then the subject has knowledge.

*If X is true and if the subject believes X is not true, then the subject has misconception.

 

So a memorized sentence will convince you of someone's knowledge of something?

 

Not necessarily. There is no specific form of material that compels all subjects to a conclusion. If you are compelled to conclude that some person has knowledge of some matter, whatever it is that compelled you to the conclusion can be anything.

The question "How do you know if someone has knowledge of something?" is no different from "How do you know if X is true?". It's just a question of how somebody arrived at a conclusion on a proposition. In this case the proposition is: "Subject B knows X is true."

 

Both are certain. Each can be publicly verified.

Sure: I believe I have a job.

:

Our language is an attempt to represent our experiences, whether they be mental, or otherwise.
Yep, I'd say it's fair to call it correspondence.

 

lol
I do my best not to.

However, when I said "should", I didn't mean it in the normative sense, but rather in an epistemological one: for it to be "knowledge" the proposition must be true. This however, does not exclude the possibility that one can be mistaken...
[..which is why I said "should"]

The existential one: "is".

Well, in the strict sense that the very reading of it was an experience, yes.
But then by that criterion, anything elicits experience. Thus, the point is moot.

As opposed to representing our thoughts.

Within the public context.
Key to verification principle is that, in principle, others can similarly corroborate your experience.

 

I am asking you how you decide. I am not asking 'how does one decide?'

 

Possibly the latter one can be, possibly not. I mean you may know in your particular instance, but there would be instances when either 1) it could not be or 2) you and others are in error. As far as your birthdate, of course errors can be made. We can find what is on your birth certificate, probably at least. But as I said, this could be in error and so could the relevent memories.

And how does preparedness play into this?

So you would say language is not representing things. And if it is not, given that you said, I believe, that yes, knowledge mirrors reality, may I conclude then that for you reality is experience?

Important note: your position is not a realist one. I am curious if Sarkus follows you here.

 

So language can be truth. By itself?

See contain hints at some process - note: I am not saying contain is correct.

I suppose the point is that language is NOT special. It is not a container. It is a phenomenon - each instance of it - and these lead to experiences. Sometimes more consciously noted than other times.

Or your misinterpretation of it.