One for the loons.

[-1-]

Socrates was wise enough to know what he didn't know. Very few philosophers are so wise.

It was a put-on. Much like "Serve and Protect". Or "Democracy". Or "Sex, Drugs, and Rock-n-Roll".

He knew precisely what he knew. "I know nothing" was the opening configuration to the Socratic method, which he employed to crush, decimate, pulverize his debating opponents.

[Age]

Socrates seemed to know:

• His own age

• His unavoidable exposure to mortality

• How to wind people up, so that they'd do what he wanted

Well yeah, we all have a working knowledge, what yer had for breakfast, whether you brushed your teeth, stuff like that. Granted it's probably true, but it's not the sort of things you bother to have philosophical debates about. The point is that anyone who says they know there is a god, the universe is non-dual, the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics obtains and so on, is a loony.

Another point that could be made is that if, and when, some one says that they know the Universe is expanding, and/or began, when there is NO actual evidence for this, then some might say that that one is also very loony.

Also, it could be also be said that for someone to reject outright that that there is no God, that the Universe is not non-dual, et cetera, is plain stupid. But some people really do believe that they know things, which they obviously do not.

I think he was a bit of an attention whore.

Bit harsh given that he didn't write anything himself.

[Skepdick]

'But I know that I don't know anything.'

And that sums up all of Philosophy.

Is the sentence "I know that I don't know" true or false? To answer this correctly is to solve the Liar's paradox.

Whether Socrates' claim is true or false is immaterial, and to debate it leads to pointless bipartisanship.
Instead, simply observe the phenomenon of self-reference.

Recursion exists. True or false?

Je pense, donc je suis.

[PTH]

If someone knows they know nothing, then they don't know they know nothing. This not knowing leaves open the possibility that they may have knowledge, without their knowledge of having that knowledge.

I think Woody Allen put it very succinctly.

Is Knowledge knowable? If not, how do we know?

[Age]

'But I know that I don't know anything.'

And that sums up all of Philosophy.

If that sums up all of philosophy, to you, then what is 'philosophy', to you, exactly?

Is the sentence "I know that I don't know" true or false?

Neither. It is just a nonsensical, illogical sentence.

To answer this correctly is to solve the Liar's paradox.

Already solved.

Whether Socrates' claim is true or false is immaterial, because all that you need to observe is the phenomenon of self-reference.

Why do you need to observe this phenomenon?

Recursion exists. True or false?

Of course that theory exists.

Some human beings are stuck in this supposed trap. You, yourself, live by computations, and theories.

Je pense, donc je suis.

Who and/or what is the 'I', that thinks?

How is that one able to think?

The correct answers, by the way, can be very easily uncovered, and known.

[Skepdick]

Neither. It is just a nonsensical, illogical sentence.

Says who?

Already solved.

By whom?

Why do you need to observe this phenomenon?

Who is asking?

Who and/or what is the 'I', that thinks?

A computer.

How is that one able to think?

Computationally.

The correct answers, by the way, can be very easily uncovered, and known.

Says who?

[uwot]

...I'd wonder at the practical gap between belief and knowing.

None whatsoever. Mind you, someone ranting that they know x is true might be an indicator that they are more likely to act like a loony.

If someone is acting on the belief, it suggests a fair degree of certainty that its a valid belief.

Yeah, they may well feel certain, but their certainty says nothing about whether the belief is true.

I'd suspect that conceding "its just my belief" might sometimes avoid a profitless discussion with a nutter.

Well I keep saying that everything beyond 'there is experience' is theory-laden to some degree. It's my fault for engaging the nutters.

[uwot]

This is a famous paradox. If someone knows they know nothing, then they don't know they know nothing. This not knowing leaves open the possibility that they may have knowledge, without their knowledge of having that knowledge.

Fella called Edmund Gettier made a career out of mangling the archaic view that knowledge is justified true belief. My view is that paradoxes and logic generally is about as interesting as a dose of clap. Anyone who doesn't share that view might want to google 'The Gettier Problem'.

It's all in my book.

Whaddya know? I've written a book too. Have I mentioned it lately?

[uwot]

Another point that could be made is that if, and when, some one says that they know the Universe is expanding, and/or began, when there is NO actual evidence for this, then some might say that that one is also very loony.

Well yeah, if there were no evidence, it would be an idiosyncratic claim, but even though there is a ton of evidence, few physicists will rule out any tiny possibility that all the different indicators could be accounted for some other way.

Also, it could be also be said that for someone to reject outright that that there is no God, that the Universe is not non-dual, et cetera, is plain stupid. But some people really do believe that they know things, which they obviously do not.

Think yer tripping yourself up with too many negatives there Age; but yeah, the general point is that people who think they have some proof that god exists or that it doesn't for example, are loonies.

[uwot]

'But I know that I don't know anything.'

And that sums up all of Philosophy.

All the good stuff.

Is the sentence "I know that I don't know" true or false? To answer this correctly is to solve the Liar's paradox.

See above for my views on paradoxes.

[Skepdick]

Fella called Edmund Gettier made a career out of mangling the archaic view that knowledge is justified true belief. My view is that paradoxes and logic generally is about as interesting as a dose of clap. Anyone who doesn't share that view might want to google 'The Gettier Problem'.

If Gettier's goal was to undermine JTB, his attempt was rather mediocre by any standard.
The way to irreparably break JTB is via the inductivist Turkey problem.

"Tomorrow I may or may not die." satisfied JTB.

I don't know what knowledge is, but if it's not useful to me then it's not knowledge.

[Eodnhoj7]

Fella called Edmund Gettier made a career out of mangling the archaic view that knowledge is justified true belief. My view is that paradoxes and logic generally is about as interesting as a dose of clap. Anyone who doesn't share that view might want to google 'The Gettier Problem'.

If Gettier's goal was to undermine JTB, his attempt was rather mediocre by any standard.
The way to irreparably break JTB is via the inductivist Turkey problem.

"Tomorrow I may or may not die." satisfied JTB.

I don't know what knowledge is, but if it's not useful to me then it's not knowledge.

Justified true belief is just a variation of the trillema.

Justified= definition continuum
True= circular
Belief= assumed axioms

[uwot]

I don't know what knowledge is, but if it's not useful to me then it's not knowledge.

No one knows what knowledge is. The only people who care usually have batshit idea they want to promote as 'the Truth'. Religious nuts and other metaphysical nutjobs mostly. Generally philosophers take the same pragmatic view as you, and get slagged off as post-modernists for their pains.

[-1-]

This is a famous paradox. If someone knows they know nothing, then they don't know they know nothing. This not knowing leaves open the possibility that they may have knowledge, without their knowledge of having that knowledge.

Fella called Edmund Gettier made a career out of mangling the archaic view that knowledge is justified true belief. My view is that paradoxes and logic generally is about as interesting as a dose of clap. Anyone who doesn't share that view might want to google 'The Gettier Problem'.

I see no connection between paradices and the Gettier problem.

I find that interest is a passion, and as such, it can be individual. That you don't find paradoxes interesting, is interesting, but is a totally subjective opinion, much like its opposing view is, that paradices are interesting.

I don't share your view, so I googled the Gettier problem. The gettier problem was a wild goose chase as it gave me no insight why paradices don't interest you.

[-1-]

It's all in my book.

Whaddya know? I've written a book too. Have I mentioned it lately?

I know you wrote a book. I read it and looked at the pictures. I gained a lot of knowledge from it. I published on these forums a truly meant admiring criticism of your book.

Mine still needs to be printed.