Drange's argument from nonbelief

Originally posted by LemonJello
Do YOU understand the Gettier condition? Apparently not. Gettier considerations add another necessary condition on to the analysis (condition (4) ); they do not somehow get rid of condition (2). So, Gettier considerations do not in any way attempt to show that belief is not necessary for knowledge. So, again, if you know P it follows that you believe ...[text shortened]... to be true. Do you agree with this or not? If not, why not? If yes, we can continue....[/quote]

Gettier considerations do not in any way attempt to show that belief is not necessary for knowledge

yes i agree. he also doesn't attempt to show that belief IS necessary for knowledge. that is simply you not understanding... anything. not from my post, because i certainly didn't say that and not from his work. what he DOES do is assume the premise "justified true belief is knowledge" and disprove it with counter examples, ie a case where justified true belief is NOT knowledge.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
Gettier considerations do not in any way attempt to show that belief is not necessary for knowledge

yes i agree. he also doesn't attempt to show that belief IS necessary for knowledge. that is simply you not understanding... anything. not from my post, because i certainly didn't say that and not from his work. what he DOES do is assume the premise "justi ...[text shortened]... " and disprove it with counter examples, ie a case where justified true belief is NOT knowledge.

he also doesn't attempt to show that belief IS necessary for knowledge. that is simply you not understanding...

WTF? I never said Gettier considerations are meant to show that belief is necessary for knowledge. For that last time: Gettier considerations only add on another necessary condition to the analysis of knowledge, one which is separate and distinct from the condition that belief is necessary for knowledge. Why are you still pretending like my analysis of knowledge somehow contradicts Gettier when the analysis of knowledge I provided explicitly includes the Gettier condition? 🙄 Good grief, man, get with the program.

You still have not addressed the following:

Perhaps we are just on different wavelengths with the terms 'belief' and 'knowledge'. No matter. The salient point with respect to the argument at issue is the following. You agree that God is such that it is His design intention that His human creatures be in a position to freely decide whether or not to relate with Him. That sort of free deliberation about wether or not to relate with God requires, minimally, in that case these creatures have some mental state such that (1) the content of this mental state is the proposition that God exists in the first place and (2) these creatures take this proposition to be true. Do you agree with this or not? If not, why not? If yes, we can continue....

Originally posted by LemonJello

he also doesn't attempt to show that belief IS necessary for knowledge. that is simply you not understanding...

WTF? I never said Gettier considerations are meant to show that belief is necessary for knowledge. For that last time: Gettier considerations only add on another necessary condition to the analysis of knowledge, one which is ...[text shortened]... to be true. Do you agree with this or not? If not, why not? If yes, we can continue....[/quote]

" the basic analysis of knowledge is that the following conditions are each necessary and collectively sufficient for S's knowing P: (1) P is true (2) S believes P (3) S is justified in believing P (4) some version of Gettier condition. "
your words.

gettier tries to prove the contrary.



i agree we should drop this. we simply have a different understanding of what he does. and i don't care much about either way.

back to the issue: no, one doesn't need to know god exists to relate to him. atheists relate to god by living a good life. different faiths experience god in different ways. what is the right way? there is no best way, and they are all right to some degree.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i BELIEVE otherwise.

You believe your communication makes sense to others, despite an other
telling you that it doesn't make sense...

I think this is another example of you believing based on faith despite
evidence to the contrary.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You believe your communication makes sense to others, despite an other
telling you that it doesn't make sense...

I think this is another example of you believing based on faith despite
evidence to the contrary.

"despite an other telling you that it doesn't make sense..."
do you understand that it may very well be your shortcoming and not mine? or do you consider yourself superior?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"despite an other telling you that it doesn't make sense..."
do you understand that it may very well be your shortcoming and not mine? or do you consider yourself superior?

It doesn't make sense to me.

I don't know if that's your fault or mine.

I currently think it's yours absent people rushing to tell me that you
were perfectly clear.

However that's not really relevant.

If you are in a conversation and the other person tells you they don't
understand what you said, it doesn't matter who's fault it is, simply
saying "well you should have understood it" doesn't get anyone anywhere.

You can believe you were clear (bearing in mind that you know what you
intended to convey) all you like. It's not going to help me understand what
on Earth you were talking about.


If someone tells you they don't understand then you need to try explaining
it from a different angle or perspective.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
" the basic analysis of knowledge is that the following conditions are each necessary and collectively sufficient for S's knowing P: (1) P is true (2) S believes P (3) S is justified in believing P (4) some version of Gettier condition. "
your words.

gettier tries to prove the contrary.



i agree we should drop this. we simply have a different und ...[text shortened]... ferent ways. what is the right way? there is no best way, and they are all right to some degree.

gettier tries to prove the contrary.

Are you just drunk or something?

What Gettier tried to show is that conditions (1), (2), and (3) are not collectively sufficient. That's why (4) is there!!!! And it's included in the analysis I provided, for Chrissakes!!!! Do you get it now? Oh my god....

i agree we should drop this.

Finally!!!!

no, one doesn't need to know god exists to relate to him

You're simply not answering the actual question I posed. Please re-read it yet again....

The question is this (and try not to dodge it again this time): For S to be in a position to freely deliberate about whether or not to relate with X, does that require that S hold some mental state wherein he takes the proposition that X exists to be true? Look, you already agreed that it is God's design intention for His creatures to be in such a position. This question is directly relevant to what that requires; and whatever it requires, you are prima facie committed to those requirements (unless you want to clarify or withdraw your agreement with the stated design intention of God). So best not to keep dodging this question....

Originally posted by googlefudge
It doesn't make sense to me.

I don't know if that's your fault or mine.

I currently think it's yours absent people rushing to tell me that you
were perfectly clear.

However that's not really relevant.

If you are in a conversation and the other person tells you they don't
understand what you said, it doesn't matter who's fault it is, simpl ...[text shortened]... hey don't understand then you need to try explaining
it from a different angle or perspective.

I don't know if that's your fault or mine.
thank you. then i may explain further.

i see belief in something to be something without proof. i believe tomorrow is going to rain. i believe that if i play black jack, i will win a million dollars. i believe that if i roll the dice 2 times i will get a six.


now, if i get more information on a particular subject, i will be closer and closer to the truth. the truth exists independent of your belief. once you are on top of it, belief becomes irrelevant.


let's take rjhinds for example. he "knows" evolution. we have told him. we have proven evolution to him. yet he doesn't believe it. that is why i claim that knowledge and belief are two separate notions.

Originally posted by LemonJello

gettier tries to prove the contrary.

Are you just drunk or something?

What Gettier tried to show is that conditions (1), (2), and (3) are not collectively sufficient. That's why (4) is there!!!! And it's included in the analysis I provided, for Chrissakes!!!! Do you get it now? Oh my god....

[quote]i agree we should drop this.[ ...[text shortened]... reement with the stated design intention of God). So best not to keep dodging this question....

"What Gettier tried to show is that conditions (1), (2), and (3) are not collectively sufficient. That's why (4) is there"

that is not gettier. that is people trying to improve upong justified true belief or disprove gettier.

how about you read in more detail on a subject before trying to appear smart by quoting the unheard of work of someone nobody has heard of.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"What Gettier tried to show is that conditions (1), (2), and (3) are not collectively sufficient. That's why (4) is there"

that is not gettier. that is people trying to improve upong justified true belief or disprove gettier.

how about you read in more detail on a subject before trying to appear smart by quoting the unheard of work of someone nobody has heard of.

Yikes....

Physician, heal thyself!

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"What Gettier tried to show is that conditions (1), (2), and (3) are not collectively sufficient. That's why (4) is there"

that is not gettier. that is people trying to improve upong justified true belief or disprove gettier.

how about you read in more detail on a subject before trying to appear smart by quoting the unheard of work of someone nobody has heard of.

Ok.

Go on then and show us an accepted knowledge definition that does not include belief.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
I don't know if that's your fault or mine.
thank you. then i may explain further.

i see belief in something to be something without proof. i believe tomorrow is going to rain. i believe that if i play black jack, i will win a million dollars. i believe that if i roll the dice 2 times i will get a six.


now, if i get more information on a particula ...[text shortened]... t he doesn't believe it. that is why i claim that knowledge and belief are two separate notions.

Actually no. RJHinds does not know evolution is true.

Apart from the fact that I don't believe he understands it (deliberately but
nevertheless)...

Because he vehemently believes that it isn't true, and denies it's true at every
possible opportunity, he does NOT in fact know that evolution is true.

The idea that you can KNOW something that you believe to be false is absurd.


Belief without proof is faith.

To believe P is simply to have a conviction that P is true.

You can't know something if you don't have a conviction that it is true.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Ok.

Go on then and show us an accepted knowledge definition that does not include belief.

Evolution is proven true.
Rjhinds has heard about evolution.
Rjhinds doesn't believe in evolution.


Rjhinds has knowledge of evolution but doesn't believe it.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Actually no. RJHinds does not know evolution is true.

Apart from the fact that I don't believe he understands it (deliberately but
nevertheless)...

Because he vehemently believes that it isn't true, and denies it's true at every
possible opportunity, he does NOT in fact know that evolution is true.

The idea that you can KNOW something that y ...[text shortened]... tion that P is true.

You can't know something if you don't have a conviction that it is true.

"RJHinds does not know evolution is true."
Doesn't believe.


he has heard about knowledge, has heard about the proof. he simply chooses to ignore it. just because he doesn't accept it, it doesn't change the truth of evolution.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
Evolution is proven true.
Rjhinds has heard about evolution.
Rjhinds doesn't believe in evolution.


Rjhinds has knowledge of evolution but doesn't believe it.

Woah there...

You are confusing different kinds of knowledge.

RJHinds knows that there is a scientific theory called evolution that proponents of science
claim explains the diversity of life on the planet and provides an alternative explanation
of our existence to creationism.

He does not know that evolution is true, (or how it's supposed to work).


Just as I know that creationism is an attempt to explain the world and how we came to
exist by ancient peoples who didn't understand the world as we do.

I don't know that creationism is true... In fact I know it to be false.


I have heard of the god of the bible, but even if it was true that it exists [it isn't]...
I don't KNOW that the god exists because I neither believe that it does, nor would I
be justified in doing so.



The fact that RJHinds knows that there is a scientific theory called evolution, and that
it is true, does not mean that RJHinds KNOWS evolution is true.