1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59Well, you’re point is well-taken, and we need to be clear about our usages or we just can’t communicate clearly—you’re certainly right there. And it’s perfectly valid for VoidSpirit to draw on M-W (or some other dictionary) to do that. My only point is that you can’t use something like that to argue that, for example, someone speaking in an epistemological sense is causing semantic confusion by relating belief to knowledge. In such a case, I wouldn’t say that M-W carries more weight than, say, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. (It’s really not a matter of “personal” definitions.)
Agreed. but unless we all carry around with us our own personal dictionary, with our own personal definitions and our own personal use of idioms we have to compromise and use standard words with shared meaning. A dictionary would seem a logical place to start.
Merriam-Webster is not one of my favourites but it carries more weight than you or I.
And googlefudge was clearly speaking in an epistemological sense when he wrote:
“To know something you have to believe that it is true.
All definitions of knowledge in epistemology require this.
If you are using some different usages of knowledge and belief then we are talking a different
language at each other.”
Whatever semantic confusion there is, it is not because he is using “knowledge” in a nonstandard sense.
EDIT: If one wanted to talk about the distinction in Greek between episteme and gnosis, then maybe one would need to make one's appeal to something other than standard usage in modern Western philosophy...
Originally posted by vistesdthat's all well and good, we are talking about the standard definitions of the words to facilitate communication. i'm letting it be known that when i claim to have no beliefs, i'm using stand defined terms and likewise when i say knowledge is not related to belief.
Unfortunately, Merriam-Webster is not an authority on the alternative uses of words in different domains of discourse, where they are quite standard: e.g. epistemology. The standard definition of “knowledge” in western philosophy is "justified true belief".
Nor is Merriam-Webster an authority on how writers of koine Greek a couple of millennia ago use ...[text shortened]... meanings of their terms is not always readily transferable—or reducible to a common standard.
issues of semantics arise when we enter into the philosophical domain but we must beware when terms are defined haphazardly. if any word can mean anything to anyone, we lose an important medium of communication.
Originally posted by whodeyHis so-called evolutionary evidence does not prove anything either.
This "we" is a culmination of writings over the centuries. This "we" is a collection of testimony from a wide range of people who all testify to the God of the Bible. Like it or not, such testimony is evidence.
Of course, the text also contain history, some of which is verifiable. It also contains a myriad of prophesy, some of which can be seen to have ...[text shortened]... dditional evidence.
Does such evidence prove anything? Nope, it's just evidence is all.
I said "so-called" because it is not real evidence for evolution at all.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by VoidSpiritYes but the relevant definition of knowledge when talking about epistemology is not necessarily
that's all well and good, we are talking about the standard definitions of the words to facilitate communication. i'm letting it be known that when i claim to have no beliefs, i'm using stand defined terms and likewise when i say knowledge is not related to belief.
issues of semantics arise when we enter into the philosophical domain but we must bewar ...[text shortened]... rdly. if any word can mean anything to anyone, we lose an important medium of communication.
the definition contained in any random dictionary.
When talking about what you specifically know, rather than the accumulated extelligence of
society as a whole then you have to believe that the information you hold as knowledge is
true.
All versions of epistemology (That I have ever seen) agree on this.
I don't know how you could claim to have knowledge and not believe that knowledge to be true.
If you don't believe it to be true then you can't know it.
Knowledge is episticaly defined as a variant on "justified true belief" (with an extra component but
that's not relevant to our discussion here)
It has to be true, you have to believe it's true, and you have to be able to justify that belief.
So talking about your personal knowledge, please explain how you can possibly claim to know anything
if you don't have a belief that the things you claim to know are true?
(in fact as you should be able to see the very notion is absurd)
1 edit
Originally posted by VoidSpiritThere are not enough like you that realize that we are often either talking past each other, or getting lost in semantics in other ways.
that's all well and good, we are talking about the standard definitions of the words to facilitate communication. i'm letting it be known that when i claim to have no beliefs, i'm using stand defined terms and likewise when i say knowledge is not related to belief.
issues of semantics arise when we enter into the philosophical domain but we must bewar ...[text shortened]... rdly. if any word can mean anything to anyone, we lose an important medium of communication.
As I see it, there is little agreement on a lot of everyday words-let alone words that attempt to describe spiritual/philosophical views.
Even with basic words like "dog" and "cat" we can get lost as to what we are actually are talking about. There is agreement as to what these words may mean(ie dog and cat), but even then the meanings of these words are only sometimes vaguely similar.
So when we get to the big words like "god" and such, we really need to give it our best shot (and possibly to put ourselves into the others shoes), so that we MAY come upon a workable definition (of words) for both parties.
- Joined
- 30 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100917
Originally posted by ChessPraxisThird day fan? I believe I believe
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son Our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried.
He descended into Hell; the third day He rose again from the dead;
He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the r ...[text shortened]... saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the dead and the life everlasting.
Amen.
Originally posted by googlefudgei'm skeptical that you have looked up all versions of epistemology if you believe that all versions agree that knowledge is based on belief. there has been fierce debate on the topic.
Yes but the relevant definition of knowledge when talking about epistemology is not necessarily
the definition contained in any random dictionary.
When talking about what you specifically know, rather than the accumulated extelligence of
society as a whole then you have to believe that the information you hold as knowledge is
true.
All versions ...[text shortened]... im to know are true?
(in fact as you should be able to see the very notion is absurd)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
belief seems to be the main cause of the problem, and the most logical way to deal with it is to eliminate it from the equation and everything becomes clearer.
indeed, according to that article, it seems that the notion that belief had to be justified as such to count as knowledge has fallen out of favor lately.
if you want to learn better my position on the subject and why i completely reject belief from the equation, read about critical rationalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_rationalism
Originally posted by karoly aczelwise words, but often not enough for everyone.
There are not enough like you that realize that we are often either talking past each other, or getting lost in semantics in other ways.
As I see it, there is little agreement on a lot of everyday words-let alone words that attempt to describe spiritual/philosophical views.
Even with basic words like "dog" and "cat" we can get lost as to what we ...[text shortened]... others shoes), so that we MAY come upon a workable definition (of words) for both parties.
Originally posted by whodeyAgain, your contradicting what you said earlier.
My point is that either God inspired man to write these things or he did not. Of course, the Ten Commandments were said to be written with the very finger of God, and would be the only actual direct writings. Of course, then there is Jesus who is said to be God in the flesh. We have his words that were written down by others.
Would it have been better f ...[text shortened]... gods behind that religion are dead in the lives of men and probably never existed bo begin with.
- Joined
- 30 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100917
1 edit
Originally posted by ChessPraxisDidn't mean to insult , I thought u were quoting a popular Christian song. My apologies. Just because I usually only read post and don't post myself does that mean I can not post? Sorry again for any confusion.
I believe that a member of nearly 7 years, with 8 forum posts to his name just replied to my post.
I thought you were cleverly combining scripture with a popular Christian band's ( Third Day) song. My mistake. As you said I don't post much. The reason being the meanness in these forums between people who supposedly share the love of Christ.
Originally posted by boononThe world has a hard time understanding what true love is.
Didn't mean to insult , I thought u were quoting a popular Christian song. My apologies. Just because I usually only read post and don't post myself does that mean I can not post? Sorry again for any confusion.
I thought you were cleverly combining scripture with a popular Christian band's ( Third Day) song. My mistake. As you said I don't post much. The r ...[text shortened]... n being the meanness in these forums between people who supposedly share the love of Christ.
Originally posted by ChessPraxisWell, other than that, you are a Muslim, right?
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son Our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried.
He descended into Hell; the third day He rose again from the dead;
He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the r ...[text shortened]... saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the dead and the life everlasting.
Amen.