Evidence Of Absence.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-08-2015, 03:27 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(23-08-2015 02:57 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(23-08-2015 02:45 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  I still contend that JTB is the best thing we have to describe what it means when someone says they "know" something. It's simple and it does the job.
It's not simple though and it doesn't do the job because it cannot be resolved.

(23-08-2015 02:45 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  If my reasoning is sound, and it's true, then I know it.
How do you know it is true?
How do you know that in the future it won't be proved to be incorrect and then we could say that you didn't know it. You only thought it.

You are exactly right Stevil. I think that at best we can only say "if it's true, then I know it."

I don't see any reason to go so far as to say we can't be certain of any physical thing. I would say that I know I had a hamburger today for lunch. I know that my dog is a real dog and not a robot. If these things are true, then I know them. If I'm somehow being deceived, then I don't.

I don't think there is an ultimate solution to the problem, but we do the best we can. I try to use scientific skepticism when forming my beliefs, as I think it yields the best chance of giving me beliefs that are true. Here's the overview from wiki:

"Scientific skeptics believe that empirical investigation of reality leads to the truth, and that the scientific method is best suited to this purpose.

Scientific skeptics attempt to evaluate claims based on verifiability and falsifiability and discourage accepting claims on faith or anecdotal evidence. Skeptics often focus their criticism on claims they consider to be implausible, dubious or clearly contradictory to generally accepted science. Scientific skeptics do not assert that unusual claims should be automatically rejected out of hand on a priori grounds - rather they argue that claims of paranormal or anomalous phenomena should be critically examined and that extraordinary claims would require extraordinary evidence in their favor before they could be accepted as having validity.

From a scientific point of view, theories are judged on many criteria, such as falsifiability, Occam's Razor, and explanatory power, as well as the degree to which their predictions match experimental results. Skepticism is part of the scientific method; for instance an experimental result is not regarded as established until it can be shown to be repeatable independently."


But you are right in that even the things that we are most certain of, could for all we know, turn out to be wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2015, 03:27 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(23-08-2015 03:23 PM)Free Wrote:  
(23-08-2015 03:21 PM)Stevil Wrote:  OK, well, let's just keep it that way.

Well why not? If I were you, I would avoid getting my ass kicked by me also.

Big Grin
Great its a deal.
We both ignore each other.

Happy Dayz
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2015, 03:46 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(23-08-2015 03:27 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  I think that at best we can only say "if it's true, then I know it."

...even the things that we are most certain of, could for all we know, turn out to be wrong.


The problem is with using the "If" disclaimer.
"if it is true then I know it."
Is the same as "I think I know it"
Which is the same as "I think it" which is a very weak position. You might be right and have true knowledge or you might be wrong and be in a position of mistakenly thinking it is true.

The term JTB (as described by that philosopher in the clip you showed me) can be back dated because it says that given the new information at hand what you thought you knew was wrong hence you didn't know it, you just "mistakenly" thought it.

That's why I have a beef with that definition of knowledge. It means that we can't claim knowledge on many things that we do today claim knowledge on.

The scientific method tells us that at the LHC they found a Higgs boson like particle. They are very sure of the finding but there is a one in a million chance that they are wrong. Do they have knowledge of the existence of the particle?

I would say, yes they do. But in order to do so I need to not worry about absolute truth, so I can't use the JTB definition.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
23-08-2015, 03:54 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(23-08-2015 03:27 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  But you are right in that even the things that we are most certain of, could for all we know, turn out to be wrong.

1 + 1 = 2 will not be wrong anywhere in the universe at any time.

It's a universal truth.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2015, 04:03 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(23-08-2015 05:49 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Maybe the problem is that we're just defining belief too differently. If I asked you if you think that Pythagorean theorem is true in Euclidean geometry, and you answer "yes", I think we could say that this is something you believe, as I would define belief as something you think is true, and if you answer "no", I don't we could say that you know it.

The fact that you do not realize the Pythagorean theorem is only true in certain geometries does not make my knowledge of it a "belief". You might have a belief but I don't. I know it.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
23-08-2015, 04:04 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(23-08-2015 03:54 PM)Free Wrote:  1 + 1 = 2 will not be wrong anywhere in the universe at any time.

1+1 = 10. Just sayin'.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
23-08-2015, 04:05 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(23-08-2015 03:11 PM)Free Wrote:  You don't seem to understand that for something to be possible it requires that either some physical evidence or demonstrable evidence needs to be available.

I'm not crazy about that statement - it seems too strong and not quite on the mark.

I'd state that for something to be possible it requires that there be no definite/solid/convincing counter-evidence.

Something along those lines.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
23-08-2015, 04:18 PM (This post was last modified: 23-08-2015 04:46 PM by Free.)
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(23-08-2015 04:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-08-2015 03:11 PM)Free Wrote:  You don't seem to understand that for something to be possible it requires that either some physical evidence or demonstrable evidence needs to be available.

I'm not crazy about that statement - it seems too strong and not quite on the mark.

I'd state that for something to be possible it requires that there be no definite/solid/convincing counter-evidence.

Something along those lines.

If ...

No evidence is available to demonstrate any said possibility ...

Then ...

There can be no definite/solid/convincing counter evidence * (See possible exception in Note below).

Because ...

An existence- the non evidenced proposed possibility- has not been demonstrated to be in existence to counter with any physical or demonstrable evidence.

Question ...

How do you counter that- the non evidenced proposed possibility- when it has not be demonstrated to be in existence?

Please explain how, or perhaps agree to the following:

* Note: The only known way to counter a non evidenced proposed possibility is with the demonstrable evidence from Evidence of Absence.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2015, 04:44 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(23-08-2015 04:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-08-2015 03:11 PM)Free Wrote:  You don't seem to understand that for something to be possible it requires that either some physical evidence or demonstrable evidence needs to be available.

I'm not crazy about that statement - it seems too strong and not quite on the mark.

I'd state that for something to be possible it requires that there be no definite/solid/convincing counter-evidence.

Something along those lines.

Free hasn't a clue.

Without evidence, I think the best we can say is that for all we know, it might be possible and it might not....we just don't know yet.

I would say that in order for us to know that something is possible, we have to have conclusive evidence for that proposition.

If we don't have sufficient evidence, I think we don't know whether or not it is possible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Matt Finney's post
23-08-2015, 04:48 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(23-08-2015 04:44 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(23-08-2015 04:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  I'm not crazy about that statement - it seems too strong and not quite on the mark.

I'd state that for something to be possible it requires that there be no definite/solid/convincing counter-evidence.

Something along those lines.

Free hasn't a clue.

Without evidence, I think the best we can say is that for all we know, it might be possible and it might not....we just don't know yet.

I would say that in order for us to know that something is possible, we have to have conclusive evidence for that proposition.

If we don't have sufficient evidence, I think we don't know whether or not it is possible.

Read my previous post and weep.

That is, if you can even follow a logical train of thought.

Drinking Beverage

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: