Justification is not a requirement for knowledge.

Lix

Just did.

Not relevant.

It was not and can not be knowledge at 12:00. Regardless of whether a person believes or not what the outcome will be. Nobody knew until the game was over.

You're done.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Once again, since the outcome is not known at 12:00, then you can not say they have knowledge or misconception at that time. Not until 12:10 can you say they have knowledge. And at 12:10 they have knowledge and not misconception because they at 12:10 know the outcome. Regardless of whether the team won or lost.

It's over Lix, you lose.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wrong answer: I said that "anyone having a different conclusion is under a misconception" i.e. there will be people who will have used their personal justification and come to a different conclusion: i.e. they will disagree on reality, but will have justified (i.e. proved it).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What are you talking about? Your making arbitrary statements out of nowhere without even acknowledging the facts.

 

Not denying: I'm now asking what makes something true if we all have differing methods of proving something?
My proof shows me that X is true, your proof shows you X is false.

So we each get to decide what is true?
Differing realities...

Either I'm missing something or you (and I'm not sure which at this point

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

).
If it isn't proven to be true how do we know it's true?
And if we all have different ways of determining true...

 

Wrong. 12:00 aside, even at 12:10, it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to tell whether the subject has knowledge or misconception. IT HASN'T BEEN GIVEN. Nobody can tell whether the subject at 12:00 or at 12:10 possesses knowledge or misconception.

What your doing is distorting EVERYTHING people are saying for your own benefit. You are not approaching the discussion with any sort of legitimacy. Your using all kinds of nonsensical tactics to distort things to your personal satisfaction. It doesn't work.

 

According to whom? If you say X is true, and another person says X is false, there are 2 people with opposing beliefs about X. Only one of them corresponds to actuality. Anyone's ability to "prove" their case is not what 'makes' their belief correspond to actuality.

 

The fact is you are wrong and in the end by your own admission. I have clearly laid out where and how.

You have admitted that you can not call it knowledge or misconception at 12:00. Regardless of the outcome, it is only a belief at 12:00 and can not be known until 12:10.

IOW, it can not be knowledge until the game is over at 12:10.

This blows up your idea of how knowledge relates to belief.

We can not go back and call it knowledge at 12:00 just because the outcome corresponds with the belief. Because there are two possibilities at 12:10 and the outcome could become misconception. Which is of course unknown at 12:00.

So it is impossible to say at 12:00 that it is knowledge.

It also invalidates your point that a belief does not or can not become knowledge or misconception.

At 12:00 it is a belief.
At 12:10 it becomes either knowledge or misconception.

Good luck rationalizing it in your mind. I know you can't admit that you are wrong about anything.

 

Do you even know what youre talking about? You state that at 12:10, "it becomes either knowledge or misconception". Yet the outcome in your scenario has not been 'given'. As such, NOBODY can tell whether the subject at 12:00, 12:10, 12:15, 12:30 etc. has knowledge or misconception.

 

Lix,

Wrong.

Nobody can tell whether the subject at 12:00 has knowledge or misconception.

At 12:10 when the game is over, the outcome is known and is now knowledge. Period.

What you want to do is assign knowledge or misconception at 12:00, based on the outcome at 12:10. Which is 10 minutes later and then go back and assign it as a given at 12:00.

That is not how knowledge, misconception and belief works. As I have proven, you are unable to assign it at 12:00 and have to wait until 12:10.

The question was, can one have knowledge at 12:00 before the game is over and the answer, the only answer is NO.

Until then, it can only be ones belief. Got it yet.

 

At 12:10 the game is over correct ?

Is the outcome known, win or lose at 12:10, yes or no. ?

 

All you're doing is restating your premise which I've been showing is incorrect. You told ME to answer the questions in your scenario.

STOP MISINTERPRETING. The following quote applies to anybody examining your scenario. These are attributes about the following quote that you are intentionally overlooking:
1. The quote below IS NOT saying that it is impossible for Subject X to possess knowledge of the game's outcome.

2. The quote below IS NOT refering ONLY to the subject's location at 12:00.

3. The quote below is stating that it is impossible for anybody examining your scenario to tell whether the subject possesses knowledge or misconception. Even after the game is over. After 12:10, does the subject possess knowledge? It is IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME OR ANYBODY TO TELL considering the outcome of the game hasn't been 'given' by the author.

 

It's over Lix, whether you realize it or not. Good day.

 

Do you even know how to debate or discuss anything? Here is a clear legitimate breakdown of why you are incorrect. Something you refuse to address. All you do is say "I'm right and you're wrong because I'm right, and it's over." Yet you REFUSE to address key flaws that I've been pointing out within your model.


Proposition X = Team wins game at 12:10.
(NOTE: IT HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN THAT X IS TRUE OR FALSE.)


1. Subject is located at 12:00.
2. Subject arrives at conclusion that X is true.
3. Subject used a confirmation to arrive at his conclusion other than visual perception.
4. Subject MUST claim knowledge that X is true. (A subject CANNOT claim misconception of a proposition that he concludes to be true.)
5. Subject cannot claim that X is unknown. (A subject cannot claim inconclusion of a proposition that he concludes to be true.)

6. The outcome is located at 12:10 (outside of the subject's visual perception).
7. Proposition X is either true or false.

8. As time progresses, the subject approaches 12:10.
9. At 12:10, the subject is located within the visual perception of the outcome.
10. Subject arrives at conclusion based on his visual perception.
11. The subject's conclusion may or may not correspond to his conclusion at 12:00.
12. The subject's conclusion may or may not correspond to the actual state of Proposition X.


The only difference between the subject at 12:00 and at 12:10 is the method that the subject used to arrive at his conclusion. In both cases, the subject arrived at a conclusion. In both cases, the subject's conclusion either does or doesn't correspond to the t/f state of proposition X.

As exemplified in many posts, you're overlooking an extremely important factor. The offset of time. As explained in the dice scenario 5 days ago.

The subject is located at 12:00. The outcome exists at 12:10. Why would you dismiss this fact that has been pointed out since you first posed your scenario? The statement "It hasn't happened yet." or "It will happen at 12:10." are merely linguistic. All it means is "the outcome is located at 12:10."

The subject and the outcome are located in different positions in time. Yet you continue to avoid this important fact. But why?

 

So what defines actuality?

 

Certainly not the subject.

 

In other words you can't address the slight problem of everyone's proof of reality being different from everyone else's.

 

It's not that difficult. A proof doesn't make anything true. If a proposition is true, it's true regardless of any proof. Whether or not everybody's proof is different has no affect on actuality.

 

So how do you tell if something is true or not?

 

That question is relative to the subject. It doesn't matter who you are or what "justification" you use, the process is always the same.

Subject observes --------> Proposition (ie Earth is flat.)
Proposition is either true or false.
Subject is compelled to a belief. (I know for a fact that the proposition is true.)

That is all there is. The same goes if the subject believes that the proposition is false. (Note: Beliefs are never chosen. If you examine evidence, and it 'compels' you, you will believe it is true even if you tried to believe it was false.)

I may consider logic and reasoning to be the best method for attaining the truth. I had a debate with somebody the other day who considers 'feelings and intuition' should be trusted over logic for attaining the truth (which it's not). There is nothing anybody can do about a subject's 'method' for arriving at their beliefs.

Subject's observation cannot change the state of the proposition. If the subject uses the most rigorous method to conclude that X is true, if X is false, then the subject has misconception. The problem that religious types arrive at their conclusions, and presume that their conclusions are givens instead of beliefs. This simply means that they approach discussions 'as if' their beliefs are givens.

Hence statements such as: "Subject concluded that X is true, but hasn't verified it."

The presumption is that "verify" is being used to say that the subject hasn't used a particular method of justification.

Now let's say that the subect does use that method of justification. The religious person will claim that the subject has "verified" it. Either way, the subject did something to arrive at a conclusion. In the end, the subject is still left with some conclusion that he considers to be true.