Justification is not a requirement for knowledge.

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by lixluke, Jan 11, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jpappl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,985
    Lix,

    Only if YOU were in the stands.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    One of those rare conditions wherein the person with the condition isn't the one who suffers, it's everyone else that does.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    All you're doing is imposing presumptions into a scenario as necessities while conveniently leaving out important factors.

    You claim that people witnessing the event can ONLY abide by state #1. This is COMPLETELY illogical, and a flaw in your scenario. You refuse to acknowledge your own flaws, and act as if you know what you're talking about.

    Here:
    1. Team wins.
    2. Subject can ONLY conclude the team wins.
    3. Therefore, subject possesses knowledge after team wins, and there is nothing he can do about it.

    Unfortunately, your scenario is flawed. Because # 2 is COMPLETELY invalid. You are using TOTALLY invalid points to prove your case. You refuse to even address this discussion with PROPER logic.
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2010
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. jpappl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,985
    Lix,

    Irony on the highest level.

    WRONG ! The end of the game is not subjective, it is a fact, that is why I used it, unless the person wants to be delusional about the result.

    Don't respond to my posts anymore Lix.

    Your asking to be proved wrong but are incapable of admitting your wrong, so it's not possible.
     
  8. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    This is a complete misinterpretation. I will break down the facts clearly.

    What I was saying is that it is impossible for a subject to be in a state of conclusion without something that compelled the subject beyond a particular threshold of certainty from inconclusion to conclusion. Perhaps he used the scientific method. Perhaps he used his 5 senses. Perhaps the devil told him in a dream. Perhaps he was trying to put up a clock, slipped on a toilet, and hit his head on a sink.

    To say that a belief is "unjustified" is to say that there was nothing to compel a subject to his conclusion. This of course is completely impossible. The only thing that I am saying is that SOMETHING compelled the subject to a conclusion.

    Whether prior to a coin toss or after a coin toss, the facts are the same. Something compelled the subject to his conclusion.
     
  9. jpappl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,985
    Lix, I will respond to this and thats all.

    People witnessing the END of the event have knowledge. It doesn't matter whether the result confirms their belief or not. Win or lose, they all know the result, it is a fact and is not a subjective matter.

    For example USC 24 Texas 20. Everyone knows the score and thus the result.
     
  10. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    Illogical. Delusion or not. All you're doing is making a false statement:
    If X is true, then, in certain cases, it is impossible for a subject to believe X is false. Furthermore, all you are doing is proclaiming that everytime a subject makes a conclusion that doesn't correspond to the actual state of the proposition, the subject is delusional.

    Delusion or no delusion, the facts remain. It is illogical to claim that a subject MUST occupy only one state just because you said so.

    You might as well be saying:
    "After witnessing the team win the game, everybody concluded that the team lost the game."

    It's the same exact thing. All you're doing is omitting logical possibilities, and imposing a singular possibility onto a proposition. Unfortunately, loigcally speaking, in EVERY proposition, no matter what, there are 3 possible states a subject can occupy. There is NOTHING you can do about this. As long as you continue to dismiss this, your argument will continue to be COMPLETELY invalid. In order for any argument to be valid, you CANNOT omit possibilities, and impose your own personal necessities. ESPECIALLY in a discussion about knowledge, belief, frames of reference, etc.
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2010
  11. jpappl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,985
    :roflmao:
     
  12. jpappl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,985
    :wallbang::wallbang::wallbang:

    I like this part the best.

     
  13. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    This thread comes VERY close to being the most useless I've ever seen here. Despite all the heroic efforts, no one is going to be able to bring him off his delusional, totally illogical pedestal. About all he ever does is just repeat the same old nonsense - never learning a single thing!!

    I suggest this whole thing be shoved in the Cesspool and forever locked.
     
  14. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    The 'proof' is in what I said you ignoramus.

    To wit: you are misunderstanding, and misrepresenting what justification means.

    Seriously man, go out, buy some books, learn to read.
     
  15. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    All you're doing is subjectifying terminology. Subject A says that he justified somethig using Method A. Subject B says that he justified something using Method B. Both subject's have completely different ideas of what is necessary for what is necessary to justify something is true.

    You can agree with a form of justification. The whole planet can agree with it. Yet in the end, it is just something that leads to a belief. A belief that can be either correct or incorret.
     
  16. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Incorrect.
    It is you who are doing so: creating your own definitions for terms, whilst ignoring those used by every one else...

    Incorrect.
    Buy a dictionary.

    Incorrect. See above.
     
  17. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    || I agree, it's been long enough. Thread Locked and Cessed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page