Yes, I had wished to talk about this in a single subject instead of lying down the whole tunnel as Lix has done- AND the reason is because the thread I was reading in wh ich this was posted was not just a commedy but nearly ridicuel, which is not so fun to watch. His beliefs and systems may appear absurd but that doesn't mean that he is absurd necessarially. So. It seems right for me to say this is a good "belief" to have. Knowledge=a justified true belief. Sounds "nearly justified" to me what about you? I'd say to elaborate it sounds a nice way of wording it but I can't mannage to think further. Any help?
Good thread! I tend to use an example such as this: We have a 3 foot [and 1/2 inch] thick brick wall and every person on the planet is invited to try and go through the wall without damaging them selves or the wall. So 10 billion people line up and after an exhausting 1000 years of attempting not one person manages to pass through he wall in any material form let alone with out damage to themselves or the wall. So the question is: Is the wall objectively present in this universe or is it merely a subjective perception? If a single person then states : "....as 10 billion people cannot pass through this wall I can clearly state that I KNOW the wall is existant and I know this because 9,999,999,999,999 other people will agree with me..." So is the wall a belief or a kowledge? As knowledge it appears to be justified, To claim it as only belief would be absurd.
Well you can't state that the wall isn't present so you can't state it's merely a subjective perception. Obviously the wall exists in some form. If ten billion people or is it 9,999,999,999,999? tried to pass through it then they must have tried to "pass through it"- It's got to be some form of perception Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!D). As other people have tried to pass through the wall. So yeah, I know the wall exists somehow. I guess your saying that theres 1 person who is unaccounted for. Or w/e. In which case, your saying its not only a belief that it exists as this is absurd. I believe there is a wall, and I know that a bunch of people failed to pass through it. One person passed through it. So it must exist somehow. Gah! Anyway, this is more about what knowledge is you know. Lix claims that it's independant of observer which is impossible. It's been shown that some of these examples if asked specifically fall. So I was looking for a more concrete example of how knowledge works.
Yeah I skimmed his thread.... Just to help explain: 10 billion people attempted to pass through the wall, one of those persons makes the statement quoted so therefore [10 billion minus one] other people would agree.. The thing is that to claim the wall is only a subjective belief would be absurd and a flight of philosophical fancy so to speak. Does it exist independant of perception? Everything is dependant on perception in some way but this doesnot necessarilly reduce knowledege or truth to mere belief. The wall in the example is undoubtedly true as proven by 10 billion people. If it were only true to one person then it would be a belief to the other 99999999999~ people until proven to be otherwise. However we can take for granted that say I am living in a flat and this flat [ appartment] can be safely declared able to be lived in by any one thus this appartment is not a beleif but is a knowledge or truth. The universe of matter and substance [ mass ] can then be safely declared as true or knowledge [ yet to be fully revealed] and not subject to belief per-see. Would it exist with out someone to percieve it? This is debatable and unable to be answered in a way that is conclusive because there will always be some perception to perceive it and if not then we shall never know the answer because there will be no one to do the knowing.
Ok man sheesh. I found that my statement was a failure admitting that you are revealing some way of how knowledge does work- here you show me that you were but, I guess I thought that it was your last statement at the end. I'm not sure what I was thinking there. But, it still seems to make sense I guess.......... I guess you've basically covered a great deal of how knowledge works. I wonder what lixluke would have to say about this.
A good real life example: "Years ago I was helping out patients in a psychiatric ward doing advocacy work. I was in fact at this time helping to feed a patient and sitting behind and to the right of another patient who had his back towards me, however I coud see his plate of food and his hands as he ate his dinner. The dining room was full and had two psych nurses in attendance." What I witnessed: The patient sitting in front of me with his back towrds me raised his hands and placed them on his head. And as his hands folded on his head the fork on his plate flew apparently unaided across the room about 15 meters landing agaist a wall on the far side [ with out hitting any one] The patient saw this and jumped tio his feet exlaiming "Did you see that did you see that!!!?" The nurses of course didn't and thought he was just having another psychotic episode. However, I saw it! So the question is, is the "flying fork" a belief or a knowledge when only two people witnessed it? To me it is a truth as that is what I experienced yet to the nurses it is a belief and probably cause for admission to their care... Yet I cannot deny the truth of what I experienced.... but I do realise that it must be assumed as belief or halucination by others that did not witenss this strange event.
You start with a belief... let's say "I believe there is a person in the office next to me". At the moment it is a belief, a claim - you don't know for sure, but you think you're correct. It might even be a guess. So you go and check.... and you see a person sitting in a chair in the office. You now do believe that it is true (condition 1), and you can justify it (condition 2). If it is indeed also true (condition 3) then it can be stated that you have knowledge that a person is in the office next to you. But it gets complicated, as the "Justified True Belief" criteria can lead to situations where it is questionable if a person actually has knowledge. For example... continuing the "person in an office" example... You believe there is a person in the office (condition 1). You go and look and see what you consider to be a person sitting in a chair. You thus conclude there is a person in the office - justification (condition 2). In reality the person in the chair is actually a tailor's dummy - but there actually is a person in the room, hidden under the table, that you never saw. So the belief is also true (condition 3). So, you believe there is a person in the room. There really IS a person in the room. You have justified your belief, but did you actually have knowledge? Thus some philosophers have argued that the "justification" must be qualified to be "not based on false premises". i.e. if your justification is that the tailor's dummy is a person, this is a false premise and thus you never actually have knowledge, even though you thought you were justified, and your belief is actually correct. This is, I think, what Gettier argued, if you've heard of him. Lixluke unfortunately can not grasp the philosophical nature of knowledge and casually omits the need for even basic justification, let alone any qualified version. Anyhoo, philosophers since Gettier have tried to establish a fourth condition along with true, justified and belief that would satisfy all situations, but I'm not sure of their success. And every attempt seems to have counter-examples that squash the effort. But it gives you a flavour of the issues of epistemology.
That is in the least a good example of "Justification." But, if you saw it then it exists. It doesn't matter if you think you're crazy. It's if you are crazy or not. If you were crazy at the time- does it matter- let's say that you aren't crazy at the time of experience fork fly. Ok, so the fork is flying through the air and your mental state is good. Is there a chance the fork exists? Yes. Provide that there is no evidence for some other situation as this one is admittable.
The point being is that to the perciever it is always the truth no matter what. "This is what I perceived, this is what I experienced this is my truth etc etc" modern psychology allows this in the way they concil and offer advice these days which is a real improvement. However just because it is my truth doenot necessarilly mean it is every one elses in a conscious sense. And it is in the clear understanding of this that allows this "truth" of the flying fork to rest reasonably comfortably in my memory. In other words I make no demand to have my truth validated by any one other than by those who shared the experience with me. So in a sens it is a truth that has little value and is of no consequence but a truth to me all the same.
another example: you are in a crowded elevator. You have your right hand in your pocket and in you hand you have your car keys. Now you are the only one in the elevator that knows what is in your hand...yes? So is it a truth a knowledge of self or is it a belief of self? And if it is a knowledge of self how do you justify it as such?
Sarkus, may be try the same thought experiment but utilise a hidden camera instead [ security camera]. Would it alter the use of conditions 1-4
If you believe it, you can justify it to yourself, and it actually happened - it is knowledge. The difficulty might not be in the first two of those criteria, but in assessing whether or not it is a "truth in actuality" (as lixluke would say). So, how do you know if something really is true (in actuality)? How many people need to bear witness etc? The "what is valid justification?" part is relatively easy by comparison.
:splat::frust:------>sorry I am a bit emotional right now. First we'd have to define the terms I'm sure.... Because I am not aware of "what they are exactly.....". But I can try. I'd say this is a part or an aspect of the whole of what knowledge of truth is, it is true what is occuring and it is true that such things can occur as having hands in pocket on keys. If I have my hand in my pocket on a key of my car then it is a truth. If you see a flying fork- that would need some criticial thought.
Not sure I understand where the hidden camera would come in? If it forms part of the justification, it makes no difference - i.e. whether you observe the room through the camera or directly. Maybe you could elaborate?
Knowledge is justified belief if and only if justified means objectively true. If a person subjectively believes X is true. If justification means X is objectively true. Then knowledge is belief that is justified. Meaning that knowledge is when a person believes X is true, and X is true. If a person or all the people in the world belives X is true. But X is really false. Then that person and all the people in the world do not have knowledge. They have misconception. http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2121067&postcount=193
I guess where I was leading to was a question of "faith" Even a security camera can be fooled and we normally have faith in the reality of what is observed. It is once that faith is diminished by bad expereince that insecurity in the truth begins to florish. You mention a fraud in your original post. a dummy in a chair with a person hiding somewhere. This complicates the issue and brings in a delberate fraud. By using a security camera in "good faith" one can clearly see tha the room is occupied but is this a truth....If you are a skeptic due to bad experience maybe you have to go into the room to be sure ...... so belief in the truth is important and having faith in your perception is also. If the truth is not believed does the truth still exist? yes... but now we are talking about denial of reality rather than justifcation of knowledge. Of course the flying fork is disbelieved by those I share the story with, and so it should be, but does that dimininsh the truth of what I and the patient experienced? Nope... However the usefulness or utility of the experinece is diminished considerably expecially given that it defies all known laws of the universe according to science.
it woud take 10 billion people to prove it as a misconception as well.... personally I would tend to go wth the 10 billion who have proved it as true knowledge...
