What is knowledge?

[warpus]

nah. for 2+2=4, you have to possess memory of definitions, rules of inference, as well as the applicability of the rules of inference to the given definitions and propositional forms. memory and our inferential capabilities are both fallible. Its definitely not an instance of 100% certain knowledge.

I would say, however, that we have 100% knowledge of our own seemings at the time at which we apprehend them.

I'm not sure what you mean.

You are 100% certain of 2+2 being equal to 4, given that you have 100% control over how the axioms and tokens are defined. Once you assume that the axioms and tokens are 'right', the answer must be 4, always.

 

[El_Machinae]

Knowledge is a truth about the world stored in a metaphorical form, along with key about how to apply the metaphor to the world.

There need be no platonic concept of the metaphor, because the metaphor refers to something in the real world. However, the metaphor may contain a plantonic concept.

"There is a red apple in front of me" is knowledge, because my neurons contain the metaphors for ''apple'' and ''red'' and ''me'' and have a self-generated key for interpreting those metaphors.

 

[Fifty]

Two questions:
Why does Fifty keep second-guessing and insulting me?

1. I don't second guess you. It only takes one guess to figure out that you don't know what you're talking about.

2. I insult you because I'm extremely immature.

Isn't Gettier's counterexample invalidated by using a false belief as a justification?

Nope. Read it again!

 

[gallego]

I'm not sure what you mean.

You are 100% certain of 2+2 being equal to 4, given that you have 100% control over how the axioms and tokens are defined. Once you assume that the axioms and tokens are 'right', the answer must be 4, always.

You have to assume that you can assume that the axioms are right, so they don't provide any certainty, even to you. See my post before.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

The Ultimate Source For Knowledge

It may also explain what it is.

 

[Fifty]

The Ultimate Source For Knowledge

It may also explain what it is.

The problem I have with your account is that it renders us normal humans incapable of posessing knowledge. We all agree that Denke's is the most sublime and factually perfect scholarship in existence, but his sheer brilliance precludes us from access to that knowledge. It's like trying to teach a dog calculus. Denke is so much smarter than us that there is simply no coherent means by which he can transfer his vast corpus of knowledge. His attempts to educate us, admirable though they are, only underscore my point, as you'll often see uneducated louts actually accusing Denke of not knowing what he's talking about or of spouting gibberish.

 

[warpus]

You have to assume that you can assume that the axioms are right, so they don't provide any certainty, even to you. See my post before.

How about this:

If I assume that I am a "Dieznyiek" can I be 100% sure that I am a "dieznyiek" ?

I would have to say yes. You say no?

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

...as you'll often see uneducated louts actually accusing Denke of not knowing what he's talking about or of spouting gibberish.

Idiots, the lot of them.

 

[Bill3000]

as you'll often see uneducated louts actually accusing Denke of not knowing what he's talking about or of spouting gibberish.

Including Perfection

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

I read that post as sarcasm.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

2+2 = 0 in the ring of integers modulo 4.

EDIT: And for an encore, 2+2 = 2 in the trivial ring with only one element (let's call it 2).

 

[Perfection]

Including Perfection

Even the smartest of us can become howling idiotic masses when in the presence of such brilliance.

As for JTB, Fifty, do you think that adding some requirement that the justification must be true would be a sufficient modication to the system?

 

[gallego]

How about this:

If I assume that I am a "Dieznyiek" can I be 100% sure that I am a "dieznyiek" ?

I would have to say yes. You say no?

You have to assume a definition for Dieznyiek. You have to assume that it means what it did 3 seconds ago. You have to assume that everything that makes that definition what it is remains constant. For example, you think you spell Dieznyiek that way only because of consistent past experiences with the alphabet and language. These are just examples...in short, the ability to assume is also an assumption itself.

 

[gallego]

I heard an anecdoate about G.E. Moore I believe it was, who, in defending knowledge during a speech at a university, said: "See now, for example, over there I see curtains. Thus, I simply know that there are windows behind. Some things can just be known like that." And someone pulled the curtains to reveal a wall....just goes to show you how overconfident we can be in our own "knowledge."

 

[Mise]

As for JTB, Fifty, do you think that adding some requirement that the justification must be true would be a sufficient modication to the system?

If I said there's half pizza in my fridge, because I put it there last night, but someone ate my half pizza and replaced it with another one, would that be knowledge?

My justification is true (I did indeed put the pizza there last night), the proposition is true (there is indeed a pizza in the fridge), and I am certainly justified in believing that it's true. But it's not knowledge.

 

[Fifty]

justification must be true would be a sufficient modication to the system?

What do you mean for the justification to be true? If you mean true in the traditional sense, it is susceptible to the counterexample Mise describes. I think I have a general idea of what you're getting at (something like that the justification is germane to the the proposition of which we are attempting to gain knowledge... I'll give a more rigorous formulation later), and that's an idea that has been proposed before. There is a Gettier-style counterexample to it, but its too complicated for me to recall offhand (I'm at a library computer right now away and the relevant article is back home). Stay tuned!

 

[Perfection]

I'm quaking with anticipation!

 

[Erik Mesoy]

1. I don't second guess you. It only takes one guess to figure out that you don't know what you're talking about.

I was referring to your constant refrain of "the urge to try to look terse, cold, and logical", "clearly designed to make you come off as coldly logical yet apathetic", etc.

Nope. Read it again!

All right. Please tell me if the following items are roughly true.

The J in JTB means that if I say "There is sentient life on the third planet from the center orbiting Star So-And-So five hundred light years away" and this later turns out to be true, then I wouldn't have had knowledge because I couldn't justify it.

Gettier says that if I had a fit of insanity which resulted in my prepending the above with "Intergalactic-telepathic aliens told me that", that would constitute justification.

 

[Perfection]

The J in JTB means that if I say "There is sentient life on the third planet from the center orbiting Star So-And-So five hundred light years away" and this later turns out to be true, then I wouldn't have had knowledge because I couldn't justify it.

True

Gettier says that if I had a fit of insanity which resulted in my prepending the above with "Intergalactic-telepathic aliens told me that", that would constitute justification.

False

 

[Mise]

Even with the caveat that one's senses are trustworthy, JTB is still countered by my pizza example above.