Philosophy Now Forum

Knowledge is justified salience.

Knowledge is experience.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Dec 23, 2020 7:20 pm Knowledge is justified salience.

In other words:

The practical definition of knowledge is understanding the nature of the elements that comprise any situation. The practical definition of intelligence is the capacity to thrive in any situation. The primary reason for such understanding is staying alive, staying alive. The secondary purpose is for style of life; lifestyle.

[quote=Walker post_id=538026 time=1636941256 user_id=11599]
[quote=Advocate post_id=485994 time=1608747643 user_id=15238]
Knowledge is justified salience.
[/quote]
In other words:

The practical definition of knowledge is understanding the nature of the elements that comprise any situation. The practical definition of intelligence is the capacity to thrive in any situation. The primary reason for such understanding is staying alive, staying alive. The secondary purpose is for style of life; lifestyle.
[/quote]

The purpose of all knowledge is actionable certainty. Meaning is always a desire to change the world. Sometimes the change desired is to lessen the probability of certain other changes.

Advocate wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 4:20 pm The purpose of all knowledge is actionable certainty.

How does your definition account for the fact that given the same knowledge/information on a particular subject-matter two different people arrive at two different conclusions.

One person is certain - so they act.
Another person isn't certain so they don't act.

How do you account for the fact that different people need different degrees of knowlede to arrive at actionable certainty?

In particular I am talking re: vaccination.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Dec 23, 2020 7:20 pm Knowledge is justified salience.

To define knowledge is knowledge as knowledge is definition. One cannot know except through limits, limits allow for definition. Definition, as limits, is both "what is", through the limit containing the phenomenon, and "what is not", through the limit excluding phenomena.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 4:25 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 4:20 pm The purpose of all knowledge is actionable certainty.

How does your definition account for the fact that given the same knowledge/information on a particular subject-matter two different people arrive at two different conclusions.

One person is certain - so they act.
Another person isn't certain so they don't act.

How do you account for the fact that different people need different degrees of knowlede to arrive at actionable certainty?

In particular I am talking re: vaccination.

Not choosing to act is still an action as other actions take the place of taking the vaccine (nature abhors a vaccuum). A person may avoid others, take vitamins, etc.


The person taking the vaccine observes the positives of the vaccine, which define the vaccine.

The person not taking the vaccine observes the negatives of the vaccine, which also define the vaccine.

Both people are observing the vaccine yet different conclusions occur as these two conclusions are two sides of the same thing; knowledge is dualistic therefore any decisions about a piece of knowledge inevitably result in dualism.

Knowledge is "what is" and "what is not" therefore results in differences because of its contrasting nature. Knowledge is difference.

[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=538418 time=1637277899 user_id=14533]
[quote=Advocate post_id=485994 time=1608747643 user_id=15238]
Knowledge is justified salience.
[/quote]

To define knowledge is knowledge as knowledge is definition. One cannot know except through limits, limits allow for definition. Definition, as limits, is both "what is", through the limit containing the phenomenon, and "what is not", through the limit excluding phenomena.
[/quote]

I just call that distinction; the first cognitive filter, followed by danger potential and interest potential.

[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=538419 time=1637278144 user_id=14533]
[quote=Skepdick post_id=538066 time=1636989921 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=538065 time=1636989604 user_id=15238]
The purpose of all knowledge is actionable certainty.
[/quote]
How does your definition account for the fact that given the same knowledge/information on a particular subject-matter two different people arrive at two different conclusions.

One person is certain - so they act.
Another person isn't certain so they don't act.

How do you account for the fact that different people need different degrees of knowlede to arrive at actionable certainty?

In particular I am talking re: vaccination.
[/quote]
Not choosing to act is still an action as other actions take the place of taking the vaccine (nature abhors a vaccuum). A person may avoid others, take vitamins, etc.


The person taking the vaccine observes the positives of the vaccine, which define the vaccine.

The person not taking the vaccine observes the negatives of the vaccine, which also define the vaccine.

Both people are observing the vaccine yet different conclusions occur as these two conclusions are two sides of the same thing; knowledge is dualistic therefore any decisions about a piece of knowledge inevitably result in dualism.

Knowledge is "what is" and "what is not" therefore results in differences because of its contrasting nature. Knowledge is difference.
[/quote]

All spiritual (of the patterns in the mind) matters are contingent upon the perspectives (including physically as well as in experience and memory), salience, and priorities of everyone involved.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Dec 23, 2020 7:20 pm Knowledge is justified salience.

Knowledge is acquired through the conditioning of the mind.

[quote=Skepdick post_id=538066 time=1636989921 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=538065 time=1636989604 user_id=15238]
The purpose of all knowledge is actionable certainty.
[/quote]
How does your definition account for the fact that given the same knowledge/information on a particular subject-matter two different people arrive at two different conclusions.

One person is certain - so they act.
Another person isn't certain so they don't act.

How do you account for the fact that different people need different degrees of knowlede to arrive at actionable certainty?

In particular I am talking re: vaccination.
[/quote]

Perspective - which includes prior experience as well as current embodiment, and priorities, and salience. All "spiritual" matters are a balance of those things.

An abstract noun, such as 'knowledge', looks like the name of some thing - a so-called abstract thing. But what and where are abstract things, and in what way do they exist? Is an abstract thing like a real thing - only different? (The delusion runs deep and strong in philosophy.)

Pending evidence for the existence of so-called abstract things, a claim beginning 'knowledge is...' can't be a description of a thing of some kind that exists somewhere, somehow - a thing that can be described. And a definition of a thing is merely a description.

Epistemology is and has always been a complete - if idly entertaining - waste of time. We just use the word 'knowledge' and its cognates, and related words, such as 'ignorance, in perfectly explicable ways. There's nothing mysterious about our linguistic practices.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:17 pm An abstract noun, such as 'knowledge', looks like the name of some thing - a so-called abstract thing. But what and where are abstract things, and in what way do they exist? Is an abstract thing like a real thing - only different? (The delusion runs deep and strong in philosophy.)

Pending evidence for the existence of so-called abstract things, a claim beginning 'knowledge is...' can't be a description of a thing of some kind that exists somewhere, somehow - a thing that can be described. And a definition of a thing is merely a description.

Epistemology is and has always been a complete - if idly entertaining - waste of time. We just use the word 'knowledge' and its cognates, and related words, such as 'ignorance, in perfectly explicable ways. There's nothing mysterious about our linguistic practices.

Despite the limitation re Gettier and acknowledging it,
my definition of what is knowledge is, Justified True Beliefs [JTB].

Such JTB must be verified and justified via a specific Framework of Knowledge [FSK] or Beliefs.

The knowledge [JTB} of FSKs are grounded on the intersubjective consensus of its relevant members and this intersubjective consensus is the basis of its reality and objectivity.

The scientific FSK with its scientific knowledge [JTB] is the most credible we have at present.

Because the FSKs are varied in the reliability of their knowledge, there will be different degrees of reliability and thus objectivity which one must verify to be acceptable by consensus.

Note scientific knowledge as the most credible is at best 'polished conjectures' and within the scientific FSK we have different degrees of objectivity for accepted proven theories and speculative theories which are mostly in abstract forms, e.g. the Big Bang Theory.

Thus abstract knowledge has some degrees of reality and objectivity.
The value of the US Dollar and many other currencies are abstract real things with a certain degree of reality and objectivity, thus transactable and acceptable by others worldwide.
Note also the recent emerged crypto-currencies, they are also objective and realistic but are merely held by intersubjective consensus. Their degree of realness and objectivity will depend on their credibility and the criteria hold.

One of the most critical criteria of truth or reality is the criteria of practicality as promoted by William James, i.e. "if it is useful it is true" I agree with that but not fully.

It is only your shallow, narrow and dogmatic thinking that condemns abstract things as not real.

Abstract things are real and objective subject to the contexts I mentioned above.

>Despite the limitation re Gettier and acknowledging it,
my definition of what is knowledge is, Justified True Beliefs [JTB].

The definition of knowledge is justified belief.

Justified true belief would require you know the ultimate truth of the belief before you could decide whether or not it was knowledge, and that would mean the word knowledge was useless. You have knowledge to the extent your belief is justified, just like you have faith to the extent it is not.

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 2:02 pm >Despite the limitation re Gettier and acknowledging it,
my definition of what is knowledge is, Justified True Beliefs [JTB].

The definition of knowledge is justified belief.

Justified true belief would require you know the ultimate truth of the belief before you could decide whether or not it was knowledge, and that would mean the word knowledge was useless. You have knowledge to the extent your belief is justified, just like you have faith to the extent it is not.

I disagree.

Truth = conformance with reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

• A belief is an attitude that something is the case, or that some proposition about the world is true.[1] In epistemology, philosophers use the term "belief" to refer to attitudes about the world which can be either true or false.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

Thus the attitude [as claimed] of what is believe to be true [conformance with reality] must be justified.

The above belief of truths cannot be knowledge until it is justified via a specific framework and system of knowledge [FSK] where the scientific FSK is the present highest standard to be compared with.