Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-08-2015, 05:54 AM (This post was last modified: 17-08-2015 06:16 AM by Matt Finney.)
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
Stevil,

I think that is a very good analysis of how people arrive at what they consider to be knowledge, and I think it's very useful in a discussion like this one.

I want to add a couple videos. The first one is what I would guess to be a typical explanation of knowledge that one receives in philosophy 101 here in the U.S., it's at least very similar to the explanation I heard when I took phil 101. The second video I found very applicable to this thread, because in that video it appears that the caller is an atheist who doesn't know it. He calls himself a deist, but when he describes his position, he describes the position of atheism as the hosts point out.







Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2015, 01:13 PM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(17-08-2015 05:54 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  The first one is what I would guess to be a typical explanation of knowledge that one receives in philosophy 101 here in the U.S., it's at least very similar to the explanation I heard when I took phil 101.
Just watched this video. Thanks for sharing the link.

There are two important things here.
1. He says a JTB needs to be true.
He cites that if you had made a claim that you know something and then it later is proven false then you actually didn't know it. 1:00-1:16 in the video.
What he didn't point out is how to determine at a point in time, if you have a JTB or if you are merely "claiming to know".

There is a difference between "claiming to know" and having justification to claim to know.
But if you have justification to claim to know can you call it a JTB? At a later point in time your claim might be proven to be false, subsequently we would say that you didn't have a JTB.
So this would mean that if there is even the slightest chance that a black swan might appear then you cannot have a JTB.

We can't know what truth is, this brings me to item 2 from the video.
2. He says that you need a method
"There has to be a methodology like logic in logical claims.
If it's been used and it checked out then it is a justified true belief"
But then he alludes to the problems with epistemology
"There are particular problems with how we check out the physical claims and that is the matter of epistemology and the theory of truth."

So my take is that knowledge of physical things isn't JTB because we can't 100% know truth of physical claims.
My take is that knowledge is personal and transient or volatile (meaning that our our knowledge can change over time).
The best we can do is call our personal belief "knowledge" because it is consistent with our epistemology and observations (justification)
We cannot assess whether it is true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: