Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-08-2015, 03:29 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(13-08-2015 03:13 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 01:19 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Only if you're a noob still viewing the site at the default setting of 10 posts per page.

Actually us what's moved beyond B-class n00b (those what views it at 50 posts per page) are back down to 10 'cos the pages load faster Tongue

Especially on a slow computer like both of mine (home and work). As it is, I'm afraid of the threads with pictures and youtube videos, because it takes forever for the page to load so I can scroll down -- even at 10 posts per page. At 50, it would probably crash my computer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
13-08-2015, 04:26 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(13-08-2015 03:00 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 02:53 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  I just want all of my beliefs to be true. Is this really that unique?

[Image: Belief_Venn_diagram.svg]

"A Venn/Euler diagram which grants that truth and belief may be distinguished and that their intersection is knowledge. Unsurprisingly, this is not an uncontroversial analysis."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

Nothing wrong with your diagram. But you have been implying all through this thread that all those beliefs in the blue section are irrational and illogical, and so are the people who hold them -- that any belief that does not coincide with absolute knowledge is somehow "bad". And that's just not how anyone else defines "belief".

If we define knowledge as JTB, and you believe x, but you also believe that you don't know x, then you believe that your belief of x is not justified. I don't see any way around this. You can try to escape it by redefining knowledge I guess, but I have not seen a definition better than JTB.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 05:54 AM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(13-08-2015 04:26 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 03:00 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Nothing wrong with your diagram. But you have been implying all through this thread that all those beliefs in the blue section are irrational and illogical, and so are the people who hold them -- that any belief that does not coincide with absolute knowledge is somehow "bad". And that's just not how anyone else defines "belief".

If we define knowledge as JTB, and you believe x, but you also believe that you don't know x, then you believe that your belief of x is not justified. I don't see any way around this. You can try to escape it by redefining knowledge I guess, but I have not seen a definition better than JTB.

Actually, now that I think about it, I don't totally like your Venn diagram either. By your own definition, knowledge is justified true belief. Your diagram only considers "true" and leaves out "justified". I can believe something that is true, but my reasons for believing it are bogus.

Here's an example. I've been working my way through a calculus textbook for years now, working all the problems. When I reach a solution, I believe that it's a correct solution. But I always go back and check my work. Usually I find that everything is OK, and I have indeed solved the problem. Sometimes I find mistakes that invalidate my solution. But every now and then, I find that my solution is correct, but the way I arrived at it was not correct -- I either made several mistakes that cancelled each other, or I did something that you're not allowed to do and somehow still got the right answer. In these cases, my belief (that I have the correct solution) was true, but it was not justified, and therefore it does not qualify as knowledge. So you have to account for that.

I do not agree with your bolded statement either. I can believe something is true, believe that I know it, and believe that my belief is justified -- and be wrong on one or the other of those, as in my examples above -- in which case my belief is not knowledge (it is only a "knowledge claim"), but it is still a belief. I can also believe something without any pretense of absolute knowledge, as unfogged has repeatedly demonstrated. Knowledge and belief are two different words with different meanings. They are not synonyms. If you insist that belief is not belief unless it's knowledge, you are using belief in a different way than everybody else does, and you will have trouble communicating. That's all. I'm not going to say this again.

I also want all of my beliefs to be true, but I cannot guarantee that they always will be. I believe the evidence of my senses, and so do you, and so does everyone. But our senses can deceive us sometimes, and it's even possible that they deceive us all the time and we're really "in the matrix". We cannot prove otherwise. In this sense there is little or no absolute knowledge. Even "2+2=4" depends on your definitions of those symbols, and on what number base you're using, as Girlyman has pointed out. The world is just not as tidy as you want it to be, and it never will be. The border between belief and knowledge is not always well-defined. We don't always know which section of the Venn diagram we're in. We can't always calculate probabilities (as I've pointed out in another post, we hardly ever can). And yet we still have beliefs. We couldn't live if we didn't. Every time you eat or drink something, you believe that it's not poisoned -- but do you absolutely know that? No, you don't. The world does not fit neatly into little black and white boxes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 07:26 AM (This post was last modified: 14-08-2015 07:41 AM by unfogged.)
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(13-08-2015 04:26 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  If we define knowledge as JTB, and you believe x, but you also believe that you don't know x, then you believe that your belief of x is not justified. I don't see any way around this. You can try to escape it by redefining knowledge I guess, but I have not seen a definition better than JTB.

Even if I accept that definition of knowledge, nobody but you is claiming that belief and knowledge is the same thing. When I say I believe X is true I am not saying that I know X is true but I am saying that it is justified. Belief can fall short of knowledge.

If we go back to Matt Dillahunty's "believe as many true things as possible" I don't see my stance as incompatible with that. My beliefs are based on evidence and align with reality so they are reliable. Matt also often says that he apportions his belief to the available evidence and that's what I've been trying to convey. The strength of my belief in X depends on how strong the evidence for it is. He also notes that absolute certainty is a red herring and that also fits my model. I'm just willing to admit I believe something is likely true before I have conclusive evidence because I understand that I may never have conclusive evidence. That doesn't mean I can't rely on the belief in the meantime. It differs from religious faith in that it requires demonstrable, repeatable evidence for the belief to be accepted.

In pure philosophical terms you are probably correct. In practical terms I don't think anybody actually lives that way. You couldn't get through your day if you simply divided the world into things you know and everything else.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 07:28 AM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(13-08-2015 12:37 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 12:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  Please re-read what I wrote because I didn't say anything like that.

You said that it is reasonable to believe that god doesn't exist without proof.

No, I didn't. Please show where you think I did.

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
14-08-2015, 07:31 AM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(13-08-2015 03:13 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 01:19 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Only if you're a noob still viewing the site at the default setting of 10 posts per page.

Actually us what's moved beyond B-class n00b (those what views it at 50 posts per page) are back down to 10 'cos the pages load faster Tongue

25 posts/page seems a reasonable compromise.

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
14-08-2015, 07:32 AM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(14-08-2015 07:31 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 03:13 PM)morondog Wrote:  Actually us what's moved beyond B-class n00b (those what views it at 50 posts per page) are back down to 10 'cos the pages load faster Tongue

25 posts/page seems a reasonable compromise.

That is C-class n00b Tongue

Bechased

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 07:33 AM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(13-08-2015 01:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 01:08 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Well, it's considerably more than 4 pages, but otherwise, yeah...

He's got his own definition of "belief" that nobody else seems to agree with.

Matt's entitled to his own definition even if nobody agrees with it.

That's just silly. If Matt wants to converse with others, then definitions require consensus.

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
14-08-2015, 07:39 AM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(13-08-2015 12:57 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Yes, that is what I'm saying. I know that 2+2=4 in base 10, 2+2=10 in base 4, and 2+2=11 in base 3. These are all facts which follow from one definition of addition (there are others) in different radixes. A statement either follows from the axioms and operators or it doesn't. There is nothing to believe. Not even in the axioms or operators. They are stipulated. The Pythagorean Theorem is another example. I don't believe it, I know it follows in Euclidean geometry. I also know it does not follow in spherical geometry. What's to believe?

I've been considering this and I do agree that it is reasonable to put things that are true by definition into their own category. I don't think it is unreasonable to include that under the broader category of belief though.

I believe things because the evidence supports the conclusion and the strength of the belief is proportional to the strength of the evidence. In the case of something that is true by definition then the formal definition of the system is evidence for the truth of the statement and I can therefore believe it with absolute conviction or that I know it. "Know" is a special case of "believe" like "square" is a special case of "rectangle".

If you are using a philosophical definition of "know" to set apart things that are in this category then we have no disagreement. If you are saying that, using everyday terminology, you don't believe things that you know then I find that as strange a concept as anything else in this thread.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 07:45 AM (This post was last modified: 14-08-2015 02:19 PM by Matt Finney.)
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(14-08-2015 05:54 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 04:26 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  If we define knowledge as JTB, and you believe x, but you also believe that you don't know x, then you believe that your belief of x is not justified. I don't see any way around this. You can try to escape it by redefining knowledge I guess, but I have not seen a definition better than JTB.

Actually, now that I think about it, I don't totally like your Venn diagram either. By your own definition, knowledge is justified true belief. Your diagram only considers "true" and leaves out "justified". I can believe something that is true, but my reasons for believing it are bogus.

Here's an example. I've been working my way through a calculus textbook for years now, working all the problems. When I reach a solution, I believe that it's a correct solution. But I always go back and check my work. Usually I find that everything is OK, and I have indeed solved the problem. Sometimes I find mistakes that invalidate my solution. But every now and then, I find that my solution is correct, but the way I arrived at it was not correct -- I either made several mistakes that cancelled each other, or I did something that you're not allowed to do and somehow still got the right answer. In these cases, my belief (that I have the correct solution) was true, but it was not justified, and therefore it does not qualify as knowledge. So you have to account for that.

I do not agree with your bolded statement either. I can believe something is true, believe that I know it, and believe that my belief is justified -- and be wrong on one or the other of those, as in my examples above -- in which case my belief is not knowledge (it is only a "knowledge claim"), but it is still a belief. I can also believe something without any pretense of absolute knowledge, as unfogged has repeatedly demonstrated. Knowledge and belief are two different words with different meanings. They are not synonyms. If you insist that belief is not belief unless it's knowledge, you are using belief in a different way than everybody else does, and you will have trouble communicating. That's all. I'm not going to say this again.

I also want all of my beliefs to be true, but I cannot guarantee that they always will be. I believe the evidence of my senses, and so do you, and so does everyone. But our senses can deceive us sometimes, and it's even possible that they deceive us all the time and we're really "in the matrix". We cannot prove otherwise. In this sense there is little or no absolute knowledge. Even "2+2=4" depends on your definitions of those symbols, and on what number base you're using, as Girlyman has pointed out. The world is just not as tidy as you want it to be, and it never will be. The border between belief and knowledge is not always well-defined. We don't always know which section of the Venn diagram we're in. We can't always calculate probabilities (as I've pointed out in another post, we hardly ever can). And yet we still have beliefs. We couldn't live if we didn't. Every time you eat or drink something, you believe that it's not poisoned -- but do you absolutely know that? No, you don't. The world does not fit neatly into little black and white boxes.

I agree, the venn diagram is only a starting point in thinking about belief and knowledge. I only posted it to show that I come from the same starting point as everyone else.

You have to remember that I'm not talking about whether or not we actually have knowledge, I'm talking about whether we think that we have knowledge. I'm suggesting that if you believe something, then you think it's true, and if you don't think you know it to be true, then perhaps it's because you think you don't have good enough reason to believe it's true. It's at this point that I suggest you recognize the absence of knowledge and place this "belief" into the category of hypothesis. I guess that ultimately I'm suggesting that people should be skeptical and scientific when forming their beliefs in order to minimize false belief.

For me, it's pointless to talk about knowledge in an absolute sense. As pointed out, because of the matrix problem, we can never know for certain that we have any knowledge at all. I'm interested in what people consider to be knowledge, and I want to encourage people to not believe things they don't consider to be knowledge.

Admit you don't know, admit you have a guess, and move on.

Either way, I think this has been a useful thread and I thank all of those who have participated, and Tomasia, I hope you don't take any offence to this thread. It's not my intent to poke fun at all. I enjoy reading your contributions, and I mean no disrespect.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: