Drange's argument from nonbelief

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"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.

No it doesn't.

Evolution is true independent of RJHind's beliefs about it.

But RJHind's knowledge state about evolution is absolutely dependent on his beliefs about it.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No it doesn't.

Evolution is true independent of RJHind's beliefs about it.

But RJHind's knowledge state about evolution is absolutely dependent on his beliefs about it.

But RJHind's knowledge state about evolution is absolutely dependent on his beliefs about it.

why? is his knowledge level changed if he also believes in it? or it simply affects how he reacts on the knowledge? does he know more or less about evolution if he believes in it?


let's take another example. A knows quantum physics. (has read books on it) He doesn't believe it. does his level of knowledge change because of that?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
But RJHind's knowledge state about evolution is absolutely dependent on his beliefs about it.

why? is his knowledge level changed if he also believes in it? or it simply affects how he reacts on the knowledge? does he know more or less about evolution if he believes in it?


let's take another example. A knows quantum physics. (has read books on it) He doesn't believe it. does his level of knowledge change because of that?

Yes. You are confusing information with knowledge.

You can hold in your mind all the details of quantum physics, or evolution,
and understand all the intricacies of those theories, and have all the evidence
for them... And you would know everything ABOUT those theories.

But you wouldn't KNOW that life evolved or that quantum physics is true unless
you also believed that life did evolve and that quantum physics is true.


Lets have a simpler example.

You could have memorized your times tables by heart and be able to recite them...
But unless you believed that they were true and correct you wouldn't know that 2*2=4.

I can read a history book depicting true events and memorize every detail.
But I wouldn't KNOW that the events depicted were true unless I also believed that
they were true.


Having information doesn't necessitate having knowledge.




People on this site tell me all the time that unless I believe in their god I will suffer for it
in the next life. I have that piece of 'information'.

However I have absolutely no belief that it's true.

Are you trying to tell me that I would know it was true if it turned out that they were right?

Despite my complete lack of belief.


Because I think you will find yourself incredibly alone in that position.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes. You are confusing information with knowledge.

You can hold in your mind all the details of quantum physics, or evolution,
and understand all the intricacies of those theories, and have all the evidence
for them... And you would know everything ABOUT those theories.

But you wouldn't KNOW that life evolved or that quantum physics is true unl ...[text shortened]... e lack of belief.


Because I think you will find yourself incredibly alone in that position.

However I have absolutely no belief that it's true.
Are you trying to tell me that I would know it was true if it turned out that they were right?
Despite my complete lack of belief.
Let's apply that bit of nonsense to the example you used with the multiplication table, specifically, 2 x 2 = 4.
You answer it correctly on every test, but don't experience it for yourself and have never seen it in action, thus, according to your claim, you don't know it.
Yet you know that when you see "2 x 2 =..." you know the answer is "4," each and every time.
You know that were you to put any other number in the space following the equal sign, you will be graded as wrong.
So whether your mind ascends to the function of the act or not, you still know the correct answer.

Currently, you deny/reject the piece of information you've been bombarded with, relative to your need for faith in God.
When it turns out that, indeed, the trust you heard of was a requirement, you will most certainly know your previous belief was wrong, now face-to-face with this confirming information.
Despite all your vitriol during this lifetime, your unbelief will convert to belief no matter how badly you want otherwise.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]However I have absolutely no belief that it's true.
Are you trying to tell me that I would know it was true if it turned out that they were right?
Despite my complete lack of belief.
Let's apply that bit of nonsense to the example you used with the multiplication table, specifically, 2 x 2 = 4.
You answer it correctly on every test, but don't ex ...[text shortened]... ring this lifetime, your unbelief will convert to belief no matter how badly you want otherwise.[/b]

Freaky I know you're an idiot and religious nut job.

You really don't need you to keep proving it to me.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Freaky I know you're an idiot and religious nut job.

You really don't need you to keep proving it to me.

So essentially, you've got nothing, eh.

Are you really convinced that if the folks who've espoused faith in God turn out to be right, your belief won't be changed?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
So essentially, you've got nothing, eh.

Are you really convinced that if the folks who've espoused faith in God turn out to be right, your belief won't be changed?

No. And you would know that if you had reading comprehension skills... you know at all.


We are discussing the conditions required for knowledge, a subject you evidently know
nothing about.


If I were presented with sufficient evidence that a god existed then I would believe that
that god existed. That is not what this conversation is about.


In my example, I was saying that I PRESENTLY don't have any belief that a god exists,
or that there is an afterlife, or that I need to believe in a god to get into a nice afterlife.

And my point was that IF it is true that there is a god as described by people on this forum
and that [at least some of] the people on this forum had been telling me about god correctly,
then while I would have the information about god [at this moment]. And in this example that
information is true.

I would not be correctly described as KNOWING that that god existed given that I don't currently
have any belief that that god exists. (and wouldn't be justified in holding such a belief)


And, again, I really don't need yet more proof that you have no clue what anyone is talking about.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes. You are confusing information with knowledge.

You can hold in your mind all the details of quantum physics, or evolution,
and understand all the intricacies of those theories, and have all the evidence
for them... And you would know everything ABOUT those theories.

But you wouldn't KNOW that life evolved or that quantum physics is true unl ...[text shortened]... e lack of belief.


Because I think you will find yourself incredibly alone in that position.

"And you would know everything ABOUT those theories.

But you wouldn't KNOW that life evolved or that quantum physics is true unless
you also believed that life did evolve and that quantum physics is true."


you are taking liberties with the english language. you just said "you would know but you wouldn't KNOW". do you realize that by writing the same word in caps, you basically admitted you really have no other suitable term. you just state there is a difference between the terms because there is a difference between the terms.


i guess we have reached the limits of this discussion. you insist belief is necessary for knowledge, i say they are independent.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Freaky I know you're an idiot and religious nut job.

You really don't need you to keep proving it to me.

so if someone asked that guy "do you know how much 2x2 equal" he should answer "i don't know"?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"And you would know everything ABOUT those theories.

But you wouldn't KNOW that life evolved or that quantum physics is true unless
you also believed that life did evolve and that quantum physics is true."


you are taking liberties with the english language. you just said "you would know but you wouldn't KNOW". do you realize that by writing the sa ...[text shortened]... ts of this discussion. you insist belief is necessary for knowledge, i say they are independent.

No. read it again.

I said that you would know everything ABOUT those theories.

But you wouldn't know that they were true. That they were instantiated in reality.



For example, I am a Harry Potter fan, I've read all the books many times.
I know all kinds of stuff about harry potter and his world.

I don't know that Harry Potter is real.

Now in a hypothetical universe where Harry did exist as described in the books.

Are you claiming that I suddenly Know that Harry is real simply because I have lots
of information about him and it's true?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
so if someone asked that guy "do you know how much 2x2 equal" he should answer "i don't know"?

Depends how you frame the question.

I can answer lots of seemingly factual questions about Harry Potter while at the same
time not believing (and in this case knowing) that they are not true.

You can 'know' what the examiner wants you to say and give that answer without
believing the answer is true. And thus without knowing what the answer is.

If I was being held by a cult who believed that the sky was tartan, and I knew that
they believed that, and that they would harm me if I answered wrong, I might answer
that the sky is tartan without ever believing that it was tartan. And certainly without
knowing that it was tartan.


However, with nothing riding on it, then yes. This person should answer that they don't
know the answer. they might elaborate by saying that they know what people generally
think the answer is. But they don't believe it and thus don't know it to be true.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No. read it again.

I said that you would know everything [b]ABOUT those theories.

But you wouldn't know that they were true. That they were instantiated in reality.



For example, I am a Harry Potter fan, I've read all the books many times.
I know all kinds of stuff about harry potter and his world.

I don't know that Harry Potter is re ...[text shortened]... nly Know that Harry is real simply because I have lots
of information about him and it's true?[/b]

yeh, i am sure putting an "about" in all caps makes for a compelling argument.

i read it. i do not find anything in your post i can argue on. it is simply a collection of your statements unfounded by anything.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yeh, i am sure putting an "about" in all caps makes for a compelling argument.

i read it. i do not find anything in your post i can argue on. it is simply a collection of your statements unfounded by anything.

Sigh. It's not about making the argument more forceful.
It's attempting emphasise the salient points.

Can you really not see the difference between holding information and knowing that information is true?

And that a vital component of that difference is belief that it is true?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
so if someone asked that guy "do you know how much 2x2 equal" he should answer "i don't know"?

That is freaking hilarious.

Tip of the fedora, good sir.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Sigh. It's not about making the argument more forceful.
It's attempting emphasise the salient points.

Can you really not see the difference between holding information and knowing that information is true?

And that a vital component of that difference is belief that it is true?

Can you really not see the difference between holding information and knowing that information is true?
And that a vital component of that difference is belief that it is true?
If I may summarize, it sounds as though you are saying that knowledge can be false, i.e., if I am convinced that some information is true, thereby making it my knowledge, the veracity of the information is not a factor in determining whether or not it qualifies as knowledge.