Philosophy Now Forum

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 6:49 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 3:59 pm

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 3:33 pm

I have rejected the notion of belief decades ago yet "Gettier-cases" depend on the notion of a justified true belief.

The 'expansion of the Universe case' depends on the notion of 'red shift' MEANING some 'thing'. But SO WHAT?

OBVIOUSLY what 'the notion of a red shift' IS CLAIMED to MEAN IS False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, just like 'the notion of a justified true belief' IS CLAIMED to MEAN is False, Wrong, AND Incorrect. So, WHY NOT just LET 'that ABSURD notion' GO?

If 'you' KEEP BRINGING UP 'that notion', like in an opening post, then 'that notion' REMAINS ALIVE.

However, IF some one "else" BRINGS 'that notion' UP, then just Correct 'them' with A 'sound AND valid argument'.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 2:31 pm My original answer directly addresses this:
Knowledge is justified true belief such that the justification make the belief necessarily true. This tweaking of the original definition utterly eliminates "Gettier-cases"

IF 'you' have, SUPPOSEDLY, ALREADY REJECTED the 'notion of' BELIEF, then WHY BOTHER talking ABOUT 'it' as those 'it' has some importance here?

So that it is dead obvious that I directly addressed the Gettier cases and have not simply changed the subject to something else.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 6:53 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 4:02 pm

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 3:41 pm

Everyone that is aware of the truth of elements of a set of true expressions has knowledge of these expressions.

Okay, and I agree.

But I also SEE a LOT of people CLAIMING to HAVE 'the knowledge of things', but REALLY HAVE just a False, Wrong, or Incorrect 'perception or notion of things'.

So, what is 'it' that 'you' REALLY WANT TO ACHIEVE or ACCOMPLISH here, EXACTLY?

To define the notion of analytical Truth correctly [the way that it really is] such that the Tarski Undefinability theorem is refuted and automated reasoning systems can consistently divide expressions of language that are true from those that are false or have unknown truth values.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 6:57 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 4:07 pm

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 3:48 pm

It took me many years to derive that notion of truth. When we use that notion of truth as the basis then Tarski Undefinability and Gödel incompleteness utterly cease to exist.

True(L,x) is either an expression of language that has been stipulated to be true such as {cats are animals} or an expression deduced from these expressions.

True and unprovable cannot exist because True(L,x) x is either an axiom or deduced from axioms. The proof that an axiom is true is simply that it is an axiom. Within the sound deductive inference model neither incompleteness nor undefinability can possibly exist.

From what I am SEEING and OBSERVING here 'you' are JUST COMPLICATING and MAKING HARD 'that', which IS ESSENTIALLY JUST VERY SIMPLE and EASY.

By the way, the ACTUAL PROOF that ANY 'thing', including ANY 'axiom', IS True is NOT just 'simply that 'it' is an axiom' AT ALL.

The 'proof' of ANY and EVERY 'thing' LIES WITHIN the EXACT SAME 'thing' as 'knowing', (or 'knowledge' if one likes), 'certainty', 'truth', AND 'definitions' COME FROM, and ARE FOUND, EXACTLY.

The only way that we know that the finite string "cats are animals" is true is that it is an axiom of English.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 6:57 pm From this and other similar axioms we can deduce other expressions that are a sound deductive inference from these axioms.

Age wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 12:34 am

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 6:53 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 4:02 pm

Okay, and I agree.

But I also SEE a LOT of people CLAIMING to HAVE 'the knowledge of things', but REALLY HAVE just a False, Wrong, or Incorrect 'perception or notion of things'.

So, what is 'it' that 'you' REALLY WANT TO ACHIEVE or ACCOMPLISH here, EXACTLY?

To define the notion of analytical Truth correctly [the way that it really is] such that the Tarski Undefinability theorem is refuted and automated reasoning systems can consistently divide expressions of language that are true from those that are false or have unknown truth values.

WHY do 'you' CONSTANTLY BRING completely and utterly UNNECESSARY 'things' INTO discussions involving 'Truth', Itself?

'Truth' is just 'that', which can NOT be REFUTED, and which is just FOUND, or UNCOVERED, and KNOWN, in a particular way and through a particular process.

Age wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 12:45 am

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 6:57 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 4:07 pm

From what I am SEEING and OBSERVING here 'you' are JUST COMPLICATING and MAKING HARD 'that', which IS ESSENTIALLY JUST VERY SIMPLE and EASY.

By the way, the ACTUAL PROOF that ANY 'thing', including ANY 'axiom', IS True is NOT just 'simply that 'it' is an axiom' AT ALL.

The 'proof' of ANY and EVERY 'thing' LIES WITHIN the EXACT SAME 'thing' as 'knowing', (or 'knowledge' if one likes), 'certainty', 'truth', AND 'definitions' COME FROM, and ARE FOUND, EXACTLY.

The only way that we know that the finite string "cats are animals" is true is that it is an axiom of English.

BUT, THROUGH WHO and/or WHAT, EXACTLY, DECIDED that 'it', (whatever 'it' is), IS 'an axiom' OR 'not'?

LEARN, or WORK OUT and FIND, and UNDERSTAND, the ANSWER to 'this QUESTION', then 'you' WILL SEE and REALIZE the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KNOWING some 'thing' FROM just THINKING some 'thing'. AND THEN, 'you' WILL ALSO KNOW HOW TO FIND, and thus KNOW, what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things' IS, EXACTLY.

Or, are 'you' here PROFESSING to KNOW HOW TO DO 'this' ALREADY, and EXACTLY?

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 6:57 pm From this and other similar axioms we can deduce other expressions that are a sound deductive inference from these axioms.

BUT, AGAIN, WHO and/or WHAT made 'those sentences or claims' 'axioms', in the beginning?

Also, to WHO, EXACTLY, are the three words 'cats are mammals' supposedly 'self-evident' and 'unquestionable'? Those three words, together like 'that', are CERTAINLY NOT, and OBVIOUSLY NOT, 'self-evident' NOR 'unquestionable' to EVERY one.

And, if some 'thing' is NOT True, NOT 'self-evident', or is NOT 'unquestionable' to EVERY one, then WHO and/or WHAT are the 'one' or the 'ones' that have DECIDED what IS 'an axiom' and what IS NOT 'an axiom', FOR EVERY one?

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 3:21 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 12:45 am

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 6:57 pm

The only way that we know that the finite string "cats are animals" is true is that it is an axiom of English.

BUT, THROUGH WHO and/or WHAT, EXACTLY, DECIDED that 'it', (whatever 'it' is), IS 'an axiom' OR 'not'?

LEARN, or WORK OUT and FIND, and UNDERSTAND, the ANSWER to 'this QUESTION', then 'you' WILL SEE and REALIZE the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KNOWING some 'thing' FROM just THINKING some 'thing'. AND THEN, 'you' WILL ALSO KNOW HOW TO FIND, and thus KNOW, what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things' IS, EXACTLY.

Or, are 'you' here PROFESSING to KNOW HOW TO DO 'this' ALREADY, and EXACTLY?

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 6:57 pm From this and other similar axioms we can deduce other expressions that are a sound deductive inference from these axioms.

BUT, AGAIN, WHO and/or WHAT made 'those sentences or claims' 'axioms', in the beginning?

Also, to WHO, EXACTLY, are the three words 'cats are mammals' supposedly 'self-evident' and 'unquestionable'? Those three words, together like 'that', are CERTAINLY NOT, and OBVIOUSLY NOT, 'self-evident' NOR 'unquestionable' to EVERY one.

And, if some 'thing' is NOT True, NOT 'self-evident', or is NOT 'unquestionable' to EVERY one, then WHO and/or WHAT are the 'one' or the 'ones' that have DECIDED what IS 'an axiom' and what IS NOT 'an axiom', FOR EVERY one?

So maybe you think that cats are really ten story office buildings and we have all been fooled
into thinking otherwise? I highly advise not to try to wash the cat's windows, it may be very dangerous.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Tue May 16, 2023 10:46 pmNot at all. I merely used JTB because that is the current received view. I have always known that beliefs tend to be nothing more than the bias of emotional attachments to opinions. When we remove the bias of emotional attachment the {belief} is transformed into a {hypothesis}. Even a hypothesis is uncertain thus has no place in any definition of knowledge.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 1:09 pm

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Tue May 16, 2023 10:46 pmNot at all. I merely used JTB because that is the current received view. I have always known that beliefs tend to be nothing more than the bias of emotional attachments to opinions. When we remove the bias of emotional attachment the {belief} is transformed into a {hypothesis}. Even a hypothesis is uncertain thus has no place in any definition of knowledge.

In the context of my reply, this makes no sense. JTB is not the current received view. And while it is true that many beliefs are little more than emotionally freighted and unreliable opinions, justified beliefs and true beliefs are considerably more than that.

Knowledge is the set of expressions of language that we are aware of as true.
I have huge reservations about this.

I don't think knowledge is confined to language expressions, nor even to that which might be expressed. (If I am out and the weather turns nasty, I know that the weather has turned nasty before any formal propositions come into my head.)

But more problematic is the implicit distinction it makes between that which we believe and that which we are aware of as true. I can see nothing that distinguishes the two, except the priviledged access to imagined truth that you and I enjoy as hypothesising philosophers.

Age wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 7:52 am

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 3:21 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 12:45 am

BUT, THROUGH WHO and/or WHAT, EXACTLY, DECIDED that 'it', (whatever 'it' is), IS 'an axiom' OR 'not'?

LEARN, or WORK OUT and FIND, and UNDERSTAND, the ANSWER to 'this QUESTION', then 'you' WILL SEE and REALIZE the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KNOWING some 'thing' FROM just THINKING some 'thing'. AND THEN, 'you' WILL ALSO KNOW HOW TO FIND, and thus KNOW, what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things' IS, EXACTLY.

Or, are 'you' here PROFESSING to KNOW HOW TO DO 'this' ALREADY, and EXACTLY?



BUT, AGAIN, WHO and/or WHAT made 'those sentences or claims' 'axioms', in the beginning?

Also, to WHO, EXACTLY, are the three words 'cats are mammals' supposedly 'self-evident' and 'unquestionable'? Those three words, together like 'that', are CERTAINLY NOT, and OBVIOUSLY NOT, 'self-evident' NOR 'unquestionable' to EVERY one.

And, if some 'thing' is NOT True, NOT 'self-evident', or is NOT 'unquestionable' to EVERY one, then WHO and/or WHAT are the 'one' or the 'ones' that have DECIDED what IS 'an axiom' and what IS NOT 'an axiom', FOR EVERY one?

So maybe you think that cats are really ten story office buildings and we have all been fooled
into thinking otherwise? I highly advise not to try to wash the cat's windows, it may be very dangerous.

OBVIOUSLY 'you' MISSED the POINT here, COMPLETELY.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 2:50 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 7:52 am

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 3:21 am

So maybe you think that cats are really ten story office buildings and we have all been fooled
into thinking otherwise? I highly advise not to try to wash the cat's windows, it may be very dangerous.

OBVIOUSLY 'you' MISSED the POINT here, COMPLETELY.

We can build a 100% reliable model of the world by stating all of the things that are
necessarily true as axioms. {cats are animals} and thus not {ten story office buildings}
are certainly true statements. The first one becomes an axiom. The second one is
deduced on the basis of the set of properties assigned to cats and office buildings.
When we say such things as {Pluto is a planet} we must say them in a way that allows
for future revision. When we says that {cats are animals} we need not be concerned
that someone will later on point out that {cats were always ten story office buildings}.

Long story short a correct model of the world is the axiomatic basis of knowledge that
defines the meaning of terms.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 3:06 pm

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 2:50 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 7:52 am

OBVIOUSLY 'you' MISSED the POINT here, COMPLETELY.

We can build a 100% reliable model of the world by stating all of the things that are
necessarily true as axioms. {cats are animals} and thus not {ten story office buildings}
are certainly true statements. The first one becomes an axiom. The second one is
deduced on the basis of the set of properties assigned to cats and office buildings.
When we say such things as {Pluto is a planet} we must say them in a way that allows
for future revision. When we says that {cats are animals} we need not be concerned
that someone will later on point out that {cats were always ten story office buildings}.

Long story short a correct model of the world is the axiomatic basis of knowledge that
defines the meaning of terms.

That's just a model of language, not a model of the world. To know that it is a model of the world would mean we would have to use empirical knowledge. Cats is a meaningless term with empirical knowledge and so is animals.

So, yes, we could go around saying correct sentences, but we would have no way of knowing if they apply to the world. Not just is small ways: like we find out that one of the animals we have been including in the category 'cats' is actually a different kind of animal. But in all ways.

It's also a denial that our words came out of empirical processes. So we have taken empirical processes, come up with words, like cats - then we list attributes of cats we have found, empirically, and use these to determine if something is a cat. Fruit of the poison tree.

Sure we can have a dictionary, but without empirical knowledge it would be filled with made up words and definitions and categories.

Gnupt is a type of girdle frak, distinguished from others by being able to do math and has wings.
Or
Kleeb are animals.

But then we find out that Kleep are actually alien toy holograms.

Whatever we call knowledge unless it is something like math with no referents, just rules and symbols, if fallible.

And analytic truths don't make it to a model unless we just consider it a random model. Because the moment we say model A is more correct than model b
we
had
to
check
empirically

and then
we
made
the
model
building
from
empirical experience (pardon the redundancy)

I have a model dogs are a type of stone.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 2:38 pm

mickthinks wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 1:09 pm

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Tue May 16, 2023 10:46 pmNot at all. I merely used JTB because that is the current received view. I have always known that beliefs tend to be nothing more than the bias of emotional attachments to opinions. When we remove the bias of emotional attachment the {belief} is transformed into a {hypothesis}. Even a hypothesis is uncertain thus has no place in any definition of knowledge.

In the context of my reply, this makes no sense. JTB is not the current received view. And while it is true that many beliefs are little more than emotionally freighted and unreliable opinions, justified beliefs and true beliefs are considerably more than that.

Knowledge is the set of expressions of language that we are aware of as true.
I have huge reservations about this.

I don't think knowledge is confined to language expressions, nor even to that which might be expressed. (If I am out and the weather turns nasty, I know that the weather has turned nasty before any formal propositions come into my head.)

But more problematic is the implicit distinction it makes between that which we believe and that which we are aware of as true. I can see nothing that distinguishes the two, except the priviledged access to imagined truth that you and I enjoy as hypothesising philosophers.

I cut out beliefs completely and replaced it with awareness of truth.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 2:38 pm We cannot count true statement that we don't know about as our own knowledge.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 2:50 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 7:52 am

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 3:21 am

So maybe you think that cats are really ten story office buildings and we have all been fooled
into thinking otherwise? I highly advise not to try to wash the cat's windows, it may be very dangerous.

OBVIOUSLY 'you' MISSED the POINT here, COMPLETELY.

We can build a 100% reliable model of the world by stating all of the things that are
necessarily true as axioms. {cats are animals} and thus not {ten story office buildings}
are certainly true statements.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 2:50 pm The first one becomes an axiom. The second one is
deduced on the basis of the set of properties assigned to cats and office buildings.
When we say such things as {Pluto is a planet} we must say them in a way that allows
for future revision.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 2:50 pm When we says that {cats are animals} we need not be concerned
that someone will later on point out that {cats were always ten story office buildings}.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 2:50 pm Long story short a correct model of the world is the axiomatic basis of knowledge that
defines the meaning of terms.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 3:06 pm

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 2:50 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 7:52 am

OBVIOUSLY 'you' MISSED the POINT here, COMPLETELY.

We can build a 100% reliable model of the world by stating all of the things that are
necessarily true as axioms. {cats are animals} and thus not {ten story office buildings}
are certainly true statements. The first one becomes an axiom. The second one is
deduced on the basis of the set of properties assigned to cats and office buildings.
When we say such things as {Pluto is a planet} we must say them in a way that allows
for future revision. When we says that {cats are animals} we need not be concerned
that someone will later on point out that {cats were always ten story office buildings}.

Long story short a correct model of the world is the axiomatic basis of knowledge that
defines the meaning of terms.

That's just a model of language, not a model of the world. To know that it is a model of the world would mean we would have to use empirical knowledge. Cats is a meaningless term with empirical knowledge and so is animals.

So, yes, we could go around saying correct sentences, but we would have no way of knowing if they apply to the world. Not just is small ways: like we find out that one of the animals we have been including in the category 'cats' is actually a different kind of animal. But in all ways.

It's also a denial that our words came out of empirical processes. So we have taken empirical processes, come up with words, like cats - then we list attributes of cats we have found, empirically, and use these to determine if something is a cat. Fruit of the poison tree.

Sure we can have a dictionary, but without empirical knowledge it would be filled with made up words and definitions and categories.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 3:06 pm Gnupt is a type of girdle frak, distinguished from others by being able to do math and has wings.
Or
Kleeb are animals.

But then we find out that Kleep are actually alien toy holograms.

Whatever we call knowledge unless it is something like math with no referents, just rules and symbols, if fallible.

And analytic truths don't make it to a model unless we just consider it a random model. Because the moment we say model A is more correct than model b
we
had
to
check
empirically

and then
we
made
the
model
building
from
empirical experience (pardon the redundancy)

I have a model dogs are a type of stone.