Originally posted by vistesdI remember talking to a lawyer once about this subject at another
Knowledge is conventionally defined as a justified belief that happens also to be true. I only want to deal with that “justified belief” part. The scientists justify their beliefs based on the evidence that they find via observation, measurement, etc.; they reason to their beliefs from that evidence. You, I presume, justify your beliefs (at least those t ...[text shortened]... ng (if I am reading him right, which I may not be) is: Is your fundamental position (1) or (2)?
chess site. We were talking about points of view and reality and the
subject was murder and the law, he told me that according to the
law if someone murdered someone else they were not a murderer
if they were not convicted according to the law. I disagreed, in mans
court someone could get off for a crime they did do, and still be
a murderer in my opinion providing they did it. I agree according
to the law that may not be true, but reality they are. With me this
same thing applies to science, there is a frame work where people
say reality is thus and so because it fits our frame work we have
built with our science just as the law fits another, and anything outside
of the law or science just isn't they not only provide a means of
focus they also provide blinders, such as when people talk about
the time before the Big Bang, they cannot make it fit so it is not
something to dwell on it is denied.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]No in my mind all questions are not the same; however, when you
You have not answered my questions. Pretending that my question is the same as a previous one then ignoring it is [b]not an answer.
All you have done with your last set is simply take the same question and ask it again with a different subject. You have gone from a fossil to a star, the questions are the same, there is what is in our universe, a ...[text shortened]... to attempt to shed doubt on science without actually making any claims or arguments whatsoever.
ask me do you believe this is real, and then ask again, and again,
but only thing that changes in your question is the subject of what I'm
being asked about, than that I believe becomes just the same
question after two or things of this nature and gets old.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayWith your question about "certainty" being certain does not say it is
“Again, I don't want to belabor that point. I'm still just thoroughly mystified by your epistemology. I'm still interested to know what you view as conditions for knowledge. For instance, do you think certainty is necessary for knowledge?”
I recall reading something years ago before I was a Christian about
knowledge by I believe Asimov I forget which that certainty to build up your views on any given subject.
Kelly
Sorry for the book.
real it is only a state of mind, a fact is real and does not require us
to believe anything about, it is what it is, or it occured in reality
human beliefs not needed. You can be certain about anthing and
use that certainty to build up your views on any given subject.
So you're saying that one's being certain (as in being free from doubt or being maximally sure) about his judgment does not entail that the judgment is correct. I agree with you: one could feel certain in his belief and yet at the same time be mistaken. But I was actually trying to ask something altogether different. I realize now that I was not clear in my question before, so I will try to ask it more carefully below.
There are at least two different things that could be meant here by "certainty". First, we could mean a state in which the person is free from doubt and has maximal conviction about the truth of the proposition. Let's call this psychological certainty. Second, we could mean the case where the evidence or grounds for belief are such that they are sufficient to guarantee the truth of the proposition. Let's call this epistemic certainty. So psychological certainty has to do with propositional attitude of the person, whereas epistemic certainty doesn't.
What you're basically saying above is that one's holding psychological certainty about P does not entail that P, and I agree with that. But my question was really about necessity, not sufficiency. So my questions for you would be:
1. Is psychological certainty necessary for knowledge? That is, for one to know that P, must it be the case that he is certain that P?
2. Is epistemic certainty necessary for knowledge? That is, for one to know that P, must it be the case that the evidence is such that it guarantees that P?
Your discussion on Asimov's writing is interesting. I am not familiar with his work on this subject. Have you had a chance to recall the name of the book?
Originally posted by LemonJelloBasically I see both of your views on certain as being the same!
[b]With your question about "certainty" being certain does not say it is
real it is only a state of mind, a fact is real and does not require us
to believe anything about, it is what it is, or it occured in reality
human beliefs not needed. You can be certain about anthing and
use that certainty to build up your views on any given subject.
So y ...[text shortened]... ith his work on this subject. Have you had a chance to recall the name of the book?[/b]
One has you believe it to be true because you think you have all
you need to know, and the other is you know you have it right because
you think you have all you need to know. So I don't see the difference
the word I'd use is 'reality' which does not require my belief or yours
that you have gotten it all right! Can we be certain and be right, yes
without a doubt. 🙂 As can we be certain and be wrong, yes! I don't
see the difference outside of you are really certain and really really
certain. 🙂
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJaythe word I'd use is 'reality' which does not require my belief or yours
Basically I see both of your views on certain as being the same!
One has you believe it to be true because you think you have all
you need to know, and the other is you know you have it right because
you think you have all you need to know. So I don't see the difference
the word I'd use is 'reality' which does not require my belief or yours
that you ha ...[text shortened]...
see the difference outside of you are really certain and really really
certain. 🙂
Kelly
that you have gotten it all right!
But I am asking you about how one may come to know elements of reality. Remember, you are the one who stated both that you hold a belief about the age of the universe and that this belief does not constitute knowledge. I'm just trying to understand why you think your belief fails to meet conditions for knowledge. I'm guessing there is some reason why you think this, and I'm just trying to figure out what it could be. Do you think your belief fails to constitute knowledge because you are not fully certain that it is true (perhaps you have lingering doubts or reservations about it)? Do you think your belief fails to constitute knowledge because whatever evidence there is available that supports your belief is not as decisive as it could be? Do you think your belief fails to constitute knowledge for some other reason? These are basically the questions I am trying to ask.
Basically I see both of your views on certain as being the same!
But they are not the same. One (psychological certainty) has to do with the degree to which the person is confident in the truth of the proposition. The other (epistemic certainty) has to do with the degree to which the evidence that bears on the propostion is truth-indicating. I think neither type of certainty necessarily implies the other -- although epistemic certainty would likely engender a high degree of confidence in the person since it contravenes any reasons for doubting the proposition.
Originally posted by LemonJello"... which the evidence that bears on the propostion is truth-"
[b]the word I'd use is 'reality' which does not require my belief or yours
that you have gotten it all right!
But I am asking you about how one may come to know elements of reality. Remember, you are the one who stated both that you hold a belief about the age of the universe and that this belief does not constitute knowledge. I'm just t ...[text shortened]... of confidence in the person since it contravenes any reasons for doubting the proposition.[/b]
Yep, that is my point, one has just a trust the other is that we are
reading the evidence right and are seeing the truth. At some point
we have to trust something for the truth.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd when you spout the same nonsense over and over and change nothing it "gets old" too. But when you refuse to answer questions it is obvious that it is not because it is "old" but because you know it will show the flaws in your position.
No in my mind all questions are not the same; however, when you
ask me do you believe this is real, and then ask again, and again,
but only thing that changes in your question is the subject of what I'm
being asked about, than that I believe becomes just the same
question after two or things of this nature and gets old.
Kelly
I am bored of your evasion tactics and will leave the discussion here.
My final submission is to point out that your belief that the earth is not over a million years old, is no different from a person believing that stars do not exist. You may be right and cannot be proved wrong, but in both cases, 'silly' is too polite a word.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat is how we differ you do not see the difference between what you
And when you spout the same nonsense over and over and change nothing it "gets old" too. But when you refuse to answer questions it is obvious that it is not because it is "old" but because you know it will show the flaws in your position.
I am bored of your evasion tactics and will leave the discussion here.
My final submission is to point out that yo ...[text shortened]... may be right and cannot be proved wrong, but in both cases, 'silly' is too polite a word.
think about as far as the past is concern and something you see in
the here and now.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd you have failed totally to provide any reasoning which shows such a difference. You have repeatedly stated it as a matter of your personal opinion but never once offered a reasonable argument as to why anyone else should think so. And you make the mistake of thinking that when you see stars they are 'here and now'.
That is how we differ you do not see the difference between what you
think about as far as the past is concern and something you see in
the here and now.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadOkay when you look at the stars you are not seeing them here and
And you have failed totally to provide any reasoning which shows such a difference. You have repeatedly stated it as a matter of your personal opinion but never once offered a reasonable argument as to why anyone else should think so. And you make the mistake of thinking that when you see stars they are 'here and now'.
now? I can grant to you that if they go out we may not know about it,
but it is still in the here and now. I feal like I baited you, sorry! I know
you wanted to call this discussion over, and I imagine if we both start
up again defending out positions, that will not happen. I'll not respond
to the next thing you say here unless you ask me too.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWell at least your post is almost an answer to my question so feel free to post a reply. You believe that when you see a star you are seeing it in the here and now. However, the light left the star a long time ago (at least we both agree that it did not leave the star here and now even if the exact time is disputed).
Okay when you look at the stars you are not seeing them here and
now? I can grant to you that if they go out we may not know about it,
but it is still in the here and now. I feal like I baited you, sorry! I know
you wanted to call this discussion over, and I imagine if we both start
up again defending out positions, that will not happen. I'll not respond
to the next thing you say here unless you ask me too.
Kelly
So what is in there hear and now? Your observation of the light? How does that differ from my observation of other types of information such nuclear decay products? Why is light a more reliable form of information transfer than any other?
My claim is that the information or evidence available that points to the age of the earth being over 1 million years is from a scientific standpoint significant as the information or evidence available that points to the existence of stars.
In the light of the above would you consider it a reasonable position for me to take if every time anyone in this forum mentioned stars, I immediately replied that the existence of stars is not proven and merely a matter of faith and any talk about stars should be qualified with the fact that their existence is based on assumptions which could well be wrong?
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, the here and now is when we see them. We draw conclusions from
Well at least your post is almost an answer to my question so feel free to post a reply. You believe that when you see a star you are seeing it in the here and now. However, the light left the star a long time ago (at least we both agree that it did not leave the star here and now even if the exact time is disputed).
So what is in there hear and now? You ...[text shortened]... qualified with the fact that their existence is based on assumptions which could well be wrong?
our observations about the light we are seeing today as we also draw
various conclusions about a fossil we could be holding in our hands.
We it seems differ on what we automatically throw into the fact column
about stars, for me it is limited to our observations in the here and
now while you seems within reason (your reasons) add years to how
long the light from the stars took to get here as well. I would say that
our seeing the light does not automatically mean they are there now,
for the reasons you have given there are assumptions if true could
bring our thoughts about stars into question.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayBut you apparently do "throw into the fact column" the existence of stars. Or do you agree with me that the existence of stars is not proven and is merely a matter of faith. That stars ever existed is merely a conclusion based on assumptions that could well be wrong. Are we in agreement?
We it seems differ on what we automatically throw into the fact column
about stars, for me it is limited to our observations in the here and
now while you seems within reason (your reasons) add years to how
long the light from the stars took to get here as well.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes I throw into the fact column the existence of stars, I know of at
But you apparently do "throw into the fact column" the existence of stars. Or do you agree with me that the existence of stars is not proven and is merely a matter of faith. That stars ever existed is merely a conclusion based on assumptions that could well be wrong. Are we in agreement?
least one that is still burning now without trusting something other
than my eyes.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd which would that be? And how can you be sure of its existence? Your eyes told you? Don't you realize that you are relying on something other than your eyes? You are making some major assumptions based on what your eyes see. Don't forget that in the past people thought the sun was a god or some other entity. For you to believe it is a star is pure fantasy.
Yes I throw into the fact column the existence of stars, I know of at
least one that is still burning now without trusting something other
than my eyes.
Kelly
Can you answer the question: Do you agree that stars ever existed is merely a conclusion based on assumptions that could well be wrong?