The Sun Also Sets

[popeye1945]

Yes, and that’s why I say that one must believe that something is a fact before one can begin to consider it to be true knowledge.

One believes one's personal experience until one is given a reason to question that experience, that is why it is said that experience is knowledge. Experience is knowledge of the physical world though it is not infallible.

Agreed, and because we consider ourselves to be sane and our senses to be reliable, we judge our experiences as accurate and real.

We are on the same page!

[Iwannaplato]

Yes, and that’s why I say that one must believe that something is a fact before one can begin to consider it to be true knowledge.

What's a fact as opposed to true knowledge?

And what's true knowledge as opposed to knowledge?

What gets classed as a fact?
What gets classed as knowledge?
What gets classed as true knowledge?

IOW what are the criteria that get an assertion in each category?

I mean, we're fallible. We might even think it's true knowledge and later realize (or not realise) we are wrong. That seems like an odd criterion, since it implies, if it's a criterion that we have some sure way of knowing it's true. We got justifications, and we can often say that so far, we haven't seen it disproven.

[popeye1945]

Yes, and that’s why I say that one must believe that something is a fact before one can begin to consider it to be true knowledge.

What's a fact as opposed to true knowledge?

And what's true knowledge as opposed to knowledge?

What gets classed as a fact?
What gets classed as knowledge?
What gets classed as true knowledge?

IOW what are the criteria that get an assertion in each category?

I mean, we're fallible. We might even think it's true knowledge and later realize (or not realise) we are wrong. That seems like an odd criterion, since it implies, if it's a criterion that we have some sure way of knowing it's true. We got justifications, and we can often say that so far, we haven't seen it disproven.

Experience is knowledge, until there is some reason to question it, but this too can only be known through an added experience.

[commonsense]

Yes, and that’s why I say that one must believe that something is a fact before one can begin to consider it to be true knowledge.

What's a fact as opposed to true knowledge?

And what's true knowledge as opposed to knowledge?

What gets classed as a fact?
What gets classed as knowledge?
What gets classed as true knowledge?

IOW what are the criteria that get an assertion in each category?

I mean, we're fallible. We might even think it's true knowledge and later realize (or not realise) we are wrong. That seems like an odd criterion, since it implies, if it's a criterion that we have some sure way of knowing it's true. We got justifications, and we can often say that so far, we haven't seen it disproven.

I withdraw my cited post completely.

[Age]

Nothing being eternal it is all perhaps.

But some 'things' ARE eternal.

Like what?

Life, Existence, the Universe.

[Age]

Yes, and that’s why I say that one must believe that something is a fact before one can begin to consider it to be true knowledge.

One believes one's personal experience until one is given a reason to question that experience, that is why it is said that experience is knowledge. Experience is knowledge of the physical world though it is not infallible.

Agreed, and because we consider ourselves to be sane and our senses to be reliable, we judge our experiences as accurate and real.

But absolutely ANY person can consider "them' 'self' to be 'sane', INCLUDING those who are classified as 'insane'. So, WHEN does one REALLY KNOW, FOR SURE, they they are 'sane', when they are just considering 'themselves" to be 'sane'?

[Age]

Yes, and that’s why I say that one must believe that something is a fact before one can begin to consider it to be true knowledge.

What's a fact as opposed to true knowledge?

And what's true knowledge as opposed to knowledge?

What gets classed as a fact?
What gets classed as knowledge?
What gets classed as true knowledge?

IOW what are the criteria that get an assertion in each category?

I mean, we're fallible. We might even think it's true knowledge and later realize (or not realise) we are wrong. That seems like an odd criterion, since it implies, if it's a criterion that we have some sure way of knowing it's true. We got justifications, and we can often say that so far, we haven't seen it disproven.

There IS One WAY to KNOW, FOR SURE, IRREFUTABLE Facts, or Knowledge, FROM what is just PERCEIVED to be true and right.

BUT, so far 'you', adult human beings, here, in the days when this is being written, do NOT YET appear READY to SEEK OUT and GAIN 'this knowledge' of HOW to SEPARATE the two, EXACTLY and FULLY.

[popeye1945]

But some 'things' ARE eternal.

Like what?

Life, Existence, the Universe.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but none of the above are eternal.

[Iwannaplato]

Experience is knowledge, until there is some reason to question it, but this too can only be known through an added experience.

I can imagine saying beliefs based on experience are knowledge, but not experience is knowledge, since I think of those two 'things' as quite different 'things'. That's going on my definitions of the words.

But it seems to me you are suggesting a kind of heuristic rather than a definition. Something like

'You might as well trust the beliefs you have unless you get some serious counterevidence.'

[Iwannaplato]

Yes, and that’s why I say that one must believe that something is a fact before one can begin to consider it to be true knowledge.

What's a fact as opposed to true knowledge?

And what's true knowledge as opposed to knowledge?

What gets classed as a fact?
What gets classed as knowledge?
What gets classed as true knowledge?

IOW what are the criteria that get an assertion in each category?

I mean, we're fallible. We might even think it's true knowledge and later realize (or not realise) we are wrong. That seems like an odd criterion, since it implies, if it's a criterion that we have some sure way of knowing it's true. We got justifications, and we can often say that so far, we haven't seen it disproven.

I withdraw my cited post completely.

OK.

[commonsense]

One believes one's personal experience until one is given a reason to question that experience, that is why it is said that experience is knowledge. Experience is knowledge of the physical world though it is not infallible.

Agreed, and because we consider ourselves to be sane and our senses to be reliable, we judge our experiences as accurate and real.

But absolutely ANY person can consider "them' 'self' to be 'sane', INCLUDING those who are classified as 'insane'. So, WHEN does one REALLY KNOW, FOR SURE, they they are 'sane', when they are just considering 'themselves" to be 'sane'?

You’re right—many people who are not sane think of themselves as sane. Their verbal and physical behavior as observed by others, especially including trained professionals, is the only way to tell.

[commonsense]

Experience is knowledge, until there is some reason to question it, but this too can only be known through an added experience.

I can imagine saying beliefs based on experience are knowledge, but not experience is knowledge, since I think of those two 'things' as quite different 'things'. That's going on my definitions of the words.

But it seems to me you are suggesting a kind of heuristic rather than a definition. Something like

'You might as well trust the beliefs you have unless you get some serious counterevidence.'

Thank you, I. That is essentially all that I was trying to say in my retracted post.

[popeye1945]

Experience is knowledge, until there is some reason to question it, but this too can only be known through an added experience.

I can imagine saying beliefs based on experience are knowledge, but not experience is knowledge, since I think of those two 'things' as quite different 'things'. That's going on my definitions of the words.

But it seems to me you are suggesting a kind of heuristic rather than a definition. Something like

'You might as well trust the beliefs you have unless you get some serious counterevidence.'

If you had no confidence in your own experience, you would be too frightened to move. Upon who's wisdom or upon what would you have the confidence to move through the world? No, the experience of the moment leads one to move forward or to halt and/or take another path. You my friend are the center of your own universe.

[attofishpi]

the sun will go supernova soon enough

-Imp

It will never do that. It's not massive enough.

Well done Veg, I was hoping someone would point that out.

[Age]

Like what?

Life, Existence, the Universe.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but none of the above are eternal.

REALLY?

What ACTUAL PROOF do you have for this CLAIM here?