Cartesian Free Will and Knowledge: Philosophy Forums

Forums Articles Gallery Links

Register Login Members Calendar New Posts Search Chat Help

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Cartesian Free Will and Knowledge » Cartesian Free Will and Knowledge

Cartesian Free Will and Knowledge

Print

Print

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Cartesian Free Will and Knowledge

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2120

Posted 10/07/09 - 09:52 AM:	#61
Hanover wrote: You're asserting that justifications must be objectively correct to be valid, but justifications are subjective by definition. Only truth is objective. It is therefore correct to say that if I believed there to be a rock based upon a subjective justification, but there wasn't in truth a rock, then my belief is invalid. It is, however, incorrect, and misses the point of the Gettier objection, to assert that an item of knowledge is invalid because my justification was objectively wrong. Justification need not be true for one to have knowledge. If you insist that my justification be objectively true, and I have no way of knowing whether it is, then I would have no reason to believe anything and could never have knowledge. Not at all. Since each of us is limited to what we (believe we) know about the world in order to build our justifications, each justification is built upon a particular epistemic perspective and is therefore subjective, thus (in practice) we can never know when we have reached an “objectively correct justification”. A justification must be based on information which is available to the subject at the time, but that does not prevent the subject from acknowledging the justification is (again subjectively) invalid if new evidence comes to light. My judgement that your alleged justification for your belief that Joe was going to visit you is my subjective interpretation, based on information accessible to me which is not accessible to you (viz the alleged fact that it was NOT Joe that you saw in the street). But my subjective opinion is also open to revision if even more evidence comes to light which in fact supports your original belief and justification (ie maybe the information I was given, viz that the person you saw was NOT Joe, was incorrect, and in point of fact you really DID see Joe in the street), in which case my subjective opinion (that your justification is invalid) is now incorrect, and your original belief and justification are restored. You can insist as much as you like on objective truth, objectively correct justifications, etc, but in practice these are irrelevant because unattainable. Hanover wrote: Since the truth of an event is always unknowable, it is always correct to assert that I only believe to know anything. However, if we stipulate as a premise that Joe is coming over (i.e. we stipulate to the Truth), and I then form an incorrect justification that happens to arrive at the truth, then under JTB theory, I would "know" that Joe was coming over. Again, this "incorrect" justification talk means that someone other than me has created a "correct" justification, which means that you're objectifying the justification element. You would believe that you know, because a justification is based on belief. Whether you truly know or not depends on whether your belief (that your justification is valid) is correct or not. Hanover wrote: You'll have to clarify here because I'm not sure if you're saying (1) there is no such thing as an objective justification, or (2) there is such a thing as an objective justification, but we just can't know it. If it's #2, then you'll have to explain, because it seems almost contradictory to suggest we absolutely cannot know something absolutely. We cannot know anything infallibly – and that includes our justifications. Hanover wrote: No, the reason why you believe your beliefs are guided by reason is because you are forced to. Is it possible to arrive at an illogical conclusion if one adheres to the rules of logic?
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Atlanta

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 919

Posted 10/07/09 - 11:11 AM:	#62
reincarnated wrote: Not at all. Since each of us is limited to what we (believe we) know about the world in order to build our justifications, each justification is built upon a particular epistemic perspective and is therefore subjective, thus (in practice) we can never know when we have reached an “objectively correct justification”. What you've said, especially in light of your qualifier "in practice," indicates that you believe justifications are objectively true or false; it's simply that we lack a means to make that determination. For example, when we say that rocks exist, we are claiming an objective truth. We may be wrong in our assessment, but we are making an objective statement regarding the external existence of rocks. However, should I affirmatively state that the existence of rocks is a relative or subjective question would mean that I'm denying the existence of external rocks, but I am instead stating that there may be rocks to me but not to you. That is, their existence is relative to the subject making that determination. A real life example is when someone says that morals are subjective. Murder, under this theory, would not be right or wrong objectively, but its moral value would simply be a matter of culture, personality, or whatever. It's therefore possible under such a theory that murder be wrong and be right at the same time depending upon who is doing the assessing. So, I understand you when you say that you are agnostic as to the actual existence of rocks. Perhaps they actually exist or perhaps they don't. However, if you state affirmatively that justifications are subjective, then you are denying their external existence. The truth value of a justification would therefore be totally dependent upon the assessment of the person making that assessment. It would make no more sense to tell the moral relativist that murder is wrong if he thinks it right than it would to tell someone their justification was wrong if all justifications are subjective. So, when I believe that Joe is coming to my house, based entirely upon an incorrect justification that I nevertheless assess as being correct, then I "know" Joe is on his way over to my house. A justification must be based on information which is available to the subject at the time, but that does not prevent the subject from acknowledging the justification is (again subjectively) invalid if new evidence comes to light. My judgement that your alleged justification for your belief that Joe was going to visit you is my subjective interpretation, based on information accessible to me which is not accessible to you (viz the alleged fact that it was NOT Joe that you saw in the street). But my subjective opinion is also open to revision if even more evidence comes to light which in fact supports your original belief and justification (ie maybe the information I was given, viz that the person you saw was NOT Joe, was incorrect, and in point of fact you really DID see Joe in the street), in which case my subjective opinion (that your justification is invalid) is now incorrect, and your original belief and justification are restored. Subjective justifications are subject to revision, but the revisions have nothing to do with increasing the reliability of the justification, considering that the only criterion you are adhering to is satisfying the particular subject that the conclusion is justified. Some subjects may prize consistency and logic in assessing a justification, while others may not, but neither should be considered more correct than the other in a subjective world. You can insist as much as you like on objective truth, objectively correct justifications, etc, but in practice these are irrelevant because unattainable. JTB theory requires the existence of objective truth. The T stands for Truth. While we may not know it or be able to attain it, you cannot be said to know something unless it be true. What I am suggesting is that an item of thought cannot be said to be "knowledge" unless that thought is True and the justification that you used to arrive at it is also True. I've simple added another T element and made the theory TJTB instead of JTB. You now seem to be arguing for the removal of the T altogether, considering you deemed it irrelevant. Is it possible to arrive at an illogical conclusion if one adheres to the rules of logic? To suggest otherwise would be illogical.
"Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason." John Belushi, "Animal House" "I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them." G.W. Bush

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2120

Posted 10/08/09 - 03:57 AM:	#63
Hanover wrote: What you've said, especially in light of your qualifier "in practice," indicates that you believe justifications are objectively true or false; it's simply that we lack a means to make that determination. For example, when we say that rocks exist, we are claiming an objective truth. We may be wrong in our assessment, but we are making an objective statement regarding the external existence of rocks. However, should I affirmatively state that the existence of rocks is a relative or subjective question would mean that I'm denying the existence of external rocks, but I am instead stating that there may be rocks to me but not to you. That is, their existence is relative to the subject making that determination. A real life example is when someone says that morals are subjective. Murder, under this theory, would not be right or wrong objectively, but its moral value would simply be a matter of culture, personality, or whatever. It's therefore possible under such a theory that murder be wrong and be right at the same time depending upon who is doing the assessing. So, I understand you when you say that you are agnostic as to the actual existence of rocks. Perhaps they actually exist or perhaps they don't. However, if you state affirmatively that justifications are subjective, then you are denying their external existence. The truth value of a justification would therefore be totally dependent upon the assessment of the person making that assessment. It would make no more sense to tell the moral relativist that murder is wrong if he thinks it right than it would to tell someone their justification was wrong if all justifications are subjective. So, when I believe that Joe is coming to my house, based entirely upon an incorrect justification that I nevertheless assess as being correct, then I "know" Joe is on his way over to my house. You may state that rocks exist, but your statement does not make it true that rocks exist. Your statement that rocks exist is simply your subjective opinion, it may or may not relate to reality. You may claim, based on your belief that rocks exist, that you also know that rocks exist – but your claim still represents no more than a subjective belief on your part (you believe that you know). It MAY also be true that you know that rocks exist – but we have no infallible way to test this. All we can be sure of is the fact that you believe that you know. In the same way, you may claim, on the basis that you believe you saw Joe on the way to your house, that you knew Joe was going to visit you – but again your claim represents no more than a subjective belief on your part (you believe that you know that he was going to visit you). It MAY also be true that you know that Joe was going to visit you – but we have no infallible way to test this. Hanover wrote: Subjective justifications are subject to revision, but the revisions have nothing to do with increasing the reliability of the justification, considering that the only criterion you are adhering to is satisfying the particular subject that the conclusion is justified. Some subjects may prize consistency and logic in assessing a justification, while others may not, but neither should be considered more correct than the other in a subjective world. “the conclusion is justified” – that’s what justification is all about, isn’t it? If the evidence does not justify the conclusion, then there is little or no justification for the conclusion, by definition. Hanover wrote: JTB theory requires the existence of objective truth. The T stands for Truth. While we may not know it or be able to attain it, you cannot be said to know something unless it be true. What I am suggesting is that an item of thought cannot be said to be "knowledge" unless that thought is True and the justification that you used to arrive at it is also True. “While we may not know it or be able to attain it, you cannot be said to know something unless it be true.” – exactly my point – which is why the best we can ever really claim is that we BELIEVE that we know. Infallible knowledge in unattainable, because we do not have infallible access to what is true, thus we are left with our claims to knowledge – and we may or may not be wrong in those claims. Hanover wrote: I've simple added another T element and made the theory TJTB instead of JTB. You now seem to be arguing for the removal of the T altogether, considering you deemed it irrelevant. In my book, a “false justification” is like a "married bachelor" - an oxymoron – it is simply impossible. A false justification is not a justification at all, so adding the qualifier that “the justification must be true” is redundant (it would be like saying "all bachelors must be unmarried") – all justifications, to count as justifications, must by definition be (believed to be) true (just as all bachelors, to count as bachelors, by definition must be unmarried). reincarnated wrote: Is it possible to arrive at an illogical conclusion if one adheres to the rules of logic? Hanover wrote: To suggest otherwise would be illogical. Then you should have no problem with the idea of arriving at such conclusions deterministically.
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Atlanta

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 919

Posted 10/08/09 - 12:17 PM:	#64
reincarnated wrote: You may state that rocks exist, but your statement does not make it true that rocks exist. Your statement that rocks exist is simply your subjective opinion, it may or may not relate to reality. My statement is considered "knowledge" if it is (1) based upon a subjective justification that it is true, (2) it is in fact true, and (3) I believe my statement to be true. My statement itself is not an opinion; it is either true or not true. Your point is that I do not objectively know if my statement is actual knowledge, and I agree with that. Here is the Gettier issue broken down: Example A: (1) we stipulate that the justification that I have is objectively incorrect, (2) we stipulate that my belief is true, (3) we stipulate that I hold the belief. Example B: (1) we stipulate that the justification that I have is objectively correct, (2) we stipulate that my belief is true, and (3) we stipulate that I hold the belief. Under JTB theory, both Example A and Example B are "knowledge" because they consistute justified true belief. Your argument that we cannot know what is objectively true is a practical concern, but in the examples above, it is made irrelevant by our stipulations. There is no objectivity requirement regarding justifications in JTB theory. If you are saying that there is, then you haven't solved the Gettier objection; you have changed JTB theory to TJTB theory. If the evidence does not justify the conclusion, then there is little or no justification for the conclusion, by definition. If one subjectively considers evidence a necessary component for a valid justification, then I would agree. However, if I state that a justification for holding proposition A is that it makes me feel happy, then would you question the Truth of my justification? That is, must my justification be correct as well. In my book, a “false justification” is like a "married bachelor" - an oxymoron …quot; it is simply impossible. A false justification is not a justification at all, so adding the qualifier that “the justification must be true” is redundant (it would be like saying "all bachelors must be unmarried") …quot; all justifications, to count as justifications, must by definition be (believed to be) true (just as all bachelors, to count as bachelors, by definition must be unmarried). Then why isn't the knowledge theory simply "justified belief," considering the term "justified" subsumes the truth element? You're saying that it is definitionally impossible to have a justified belief that the earth is flat because a justification must be correct to be a real justification. I think you've altered JTB theory by stating this. If I say that the earth is flat based upon my observation of the earth and I believe the earth is flat, the reason that I lack knowledge that the earth is flat is NOT because my justification is invalid; it's because the earth is in TRUTH not flat. That is, my belief in the flatness of the earth fails under the T element, not the J element. The J element is satisfied if I subjectively believe it. The T element relates to objective reality, regardless of whether we mere mortals have access to it.
"Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason." John Belushi, "Animal House" "I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them." G.W. Bush

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2120

Posted 10/09/09 - 10:37 AM:	#65
Hanover wrote: My statement itself is not an opinion; it is either true or not true. Opinion is another word for belief. To claim that your belief (viz that rocks exist) is NOT a belief is illogical. Hanover wrote: Here is the Gettier issue broken down: Example A: (1) we stipulate that the justification that I have is objectively incorrect, (2) we stipulate that my belief is true, (3) we stipulate that I hold the belief. How do we know (infallibly) that the justification is “objectively incorrect”? Hanover wrote: Example B: (1) we stipulate that the justification that I have is objectively correct, (2) we stipulate that my belief is true, and (3) we stipulate that I hold the belief. Under JTB theory, both Example A and Example B are "knowledge" because they consistute justified true belief. From the perspective of a person who believes his justification valid, he believes that he possesses knowledge. It does not follow from his belief that he DOES possess knowledge, since both his belief that his justification is valid and his belief that his belief is true cannot be infallibly tested. Another observer may claim that the person does NOT possess knowledge by virtue of the second person’s belief that the first person’s justification is invalid – but again we simply have a subjective belief that the original justification is invalid. We cannot know infallibly. At the end of the day, we are reduced to competing epistemic perspectives with different people believing they have different claims to knowledge, but with no infallible way to determine who is right and who is wrong. Hanover wrote: If one subjectively considers evidence a necessary component for a valid justification, then I would agree. However, if I state that a justification for holding proposition A is that it makes me feel happy, then would you question the Truth of my justification? That is, must my justification be correct as well. I would question the strength and validity of your justification. A justification based on “I believe that X because it makes me feel happy” is neither true nor false (truth conditions do not apply) – it only ACQUIRES truth or falsity through association with the truth or falsity of X. Hanover wrote: Then why isn't the knowledge theory simply "justified belief," considering the term "justified" subsumes the truth element? You're saying that it is definitionally impossible to have a justified belief that the earth is flat because a justification must be correct to be a real justification. I think you've altered JTB theory by stating this. If I say that the earth is flat based upon my observation of the earth and I believe the earth is flat, the reason that I lack knowledge that the earth is flat is NOT because my justification is invalid; it's because the earth is in TRUTH not flat. That is, my belief in the flatness of the earth fails under the T element, not the J element. The J element is satisfied if I subjectively believe it. The T element relates to objective reality, regardless of whether we mere mortals have access to it. It is possible for one to have a justification that the earth is flat based on incorrect, invalid or false evidence, or evidence interpreted incorrectly, but which evidence one BELIEVES to be valid. If it is believed to be valid it still counts as a (believed) justification, but does not lead to (believed) knowledge because it is not true that the earth is flat. What one cannot have is a justification which one BELIEVES to be incorrect (this is the equivalent of a married bachelor). Try to think of knowledge as perspectival and subjective – perspectival because all 3 components of knowledge (our beliefs about our justifications, our beliefs themselves, and even our beliefs about truth) are all perspectival and subjective.
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Atlanta

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 919

Posted 10/09/09 - 11:07 AM:	#66
reincarnated wrote: How do we know (infallibly) that the justification is “objectively incorrect”? This question is asked only to avoid the impact of the example I gave, which was to stipulate to the validity or invalidity of the justification. In the example I gave, we know the justification was invalid because I stated, as a given, that it was. Your question doesn't only pertain to justifications, but it is also a question you can ask regarding whether something satisfies the Truth element. My point remains: it is irrelevant whether we can be certain of the truth for there to be knowledge, but truth remains a necessary component in the equation. From the perspective of a person who believes his justification valid, he believes that he possesses knowledge. It does not follow from his belief that he DOES possess knowledge, since both his belief that his justification is valid and his belief that his belief is true cannot be infallibly tested. Another observer may claim that the person does NOT possess knowledge by virtue of the second person’s belief that the first person’s justification is invalid …quot; but again we simply have a subjective belief that the original justification is invalid. We cannot know infallibly. At the end of the day, we are reduced to competing epistemic perspectives with different people believing they have different claims to knowledge, but with no infallible way to determine who is right and who is wrong. We're going in circles. Let me ask a very specific question: If (1) my justification is NOT objectively valid, yet I do not know that, (2) my statement is objectively true, and (3) I believe that my statement is true, do I have knowledge? I am not interested in whether in real life we can ever know if my justification is objectively true or if my statment is objectively true. I am simply interested in a yes or no answer to my specific question. It is possible for one to have a justification that the earth is flat based on incorrect, invalid or false evidence, or evidence interpreted incorrectly, but which evidence one BELIEVES to be valid. If it is believed to be valid it still counts as a (believed) justification, but does not lead to (believed) knowledge because it is not true that the earth is flat. This statement addresses the truth element which is not at issue. The justification element is what we're debating. What one cannot have is a justification which one BELIEVES to be incorrect (this is the equivalent of a married bachelor). I agree with this statement because it says what I've been saying all along: justifications are subjective. If the indivdual subject determines what is justified and what is not justified, he cannot be wrong.
"Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason." John Belushi, "Animal House" "I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them." G.W. Bush

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2120

Posted 10/10/09 - 11:07 PM:	#67
Hanover wrote: it is irrelevant whether we can be certain of the truth for there to be knowledge It IS relevant if we are to claim an objective view of knowledge. If we cannot know the truth infallibly, then all we ever have is differing subjective claims to knowledge, with no way to say (infallibly) which is right and which is wrong. Hanover wrote: We're going in circles. Let me ask a very specific question: If (1) my justification is NOT objectively valid, yet I do not know that, (2) my statement is objectively true, and (3) I believe that my statement is true, do I have knowledge? I am not interested in whether in real life we can ever know if my justification is objectively true or if my statment is objectively true. I am simply interested in a yes or no answer to my specific question. You are asking for a God’s-eye view, an objective assessment of knowledge. If you have been reading the posts so far, you will understand that I keep telling you that all of the elements of knowledge are subjective. Nobody has access to the objective “God’s-eye” view. In your example, first let us analyse the information accessible to you (the subjective question): You believe that X You believe that your belief that X is justified You believe that X is true It follows, from JTB, that you believe that you know that X. Now, let us try to analyse the issue from an objective point of view: You stipulate that (unknown to you) your justification is (objectively) NOT valid – hence you do NOT know that X (BUT my question would be – how do you get access to such “objective” information?) Since we cannot ever know infallibly, in real life, whether your justification is objectively valid or not, then it follows that all we ever have is different subjective assessments of validity and hence claims to knowledge. As I have been saying all along, when you claim to know that X what you are really saying is that you believe that you know that X. I may believe that you do NOT know that X. Which one of us is right? How do we get access to that objective verification? Please do enlighten me. Hanover wrote: This statement addresses the truth element which is not at issue. The justification element is what we're debating. This was in response to your claim that we could dispense with T and define knowledge simply as JB. Hanover wrote: If the indivdual subject determines what is justified and what is not justified, he cannot be wrong. Which opens the door to claims such as “I am justified in believing that X because believing that X makes me happy” – and then claiming “knowledge that X” based on such beliefs.
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Atlanta

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 919

Posted 10/12/09 - 04:57 AM:	#68
reincarnated wrote: You are asking for a God’s-eye view, an objective assessment of knowledge. If you have been reading the posts so far, you will understand that I keep telling you that all of the elements of knowledge are subjective. Nobody has access to the objective “God’s-eye” view. All the elements are not subjective. Truth is objective. If I state that there is a rock, I am either (1) correct, or (2) incorrect depending upon the truth of the existence of a rock. Your statement that there is a "God's-eye view" is an admission on your part that there is an objectively right or wrong view of the world. The fact that none of us are God is obvious, and for that reason, we don't have his perspective. None of that changes the fact that you are admitting to an objective "truth" when you reference an objective (God's) perspective. On the other hand, if I believe a painting is pretty, I am infallibly correct because prettiness is purely subjective. That is, you can't say to me that the painting is objectively not pretty, simply because beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What can be said about paintings is often said about ethics, although there is considerable disagreement regarding whether particular acts can be said to be objectively moral or immoral. In your example, first let us analyse the information accessible to you (the subjective question): You believe that X You believe that your belief that X is justified You believe that X is true It follows, from JTB, that you believe that you know that X. The question was a yes or no question, and it continues to go unanswered by you. I'm not suggesting you can't explain your answer after providing a yes or a no, but you are simply refusing to respond at this point. At any rate, in your analysis above, one's belief that something is true does not thereby make that belief "knowledge" unless the belief is in fact true. You are arguing for solipsism here, suggesting that nothing can ever be known. Now, let us try to analyse the issue from an objective point of view: You stipulate that (unknown to you) your justification is (objectively) NOT valid …quot; hence you do NOT know that X (BUT my question would be …quot; how do you get access to such “objective” information?) And my response is that you are asking this question simply to avoid responding to the question. It's a hypothetical, which means you are forced to deal with the premises as provided. This evasion allows you to avoid the real problem presented by the Gettier objection. If you acknowledge that justifications are objective, then you have abandoned JTB theory. If you claim that justifications are subjective, then you are forced to admit that I "knew" Joe was on his way over to my house based upon the fact that someone who was not Joe, but who I thought was Joe, was seen walking towards my house. Since we cannot ever know infallibly, in real life, whether your justification is objectively valid or not, then it follows that all we ever have is different subjective assessments of validity and hence claims to knowledge. Here you admit what you've been trying so desperately trying to aviod saying, although it's only an implicit admission. Your statement that you cannot know "whether your justification is objectively valid or not," certainly implies that justifications have an objective truth value, although they are simply unknowable. As I have been saying all along, when you claim to know that X what you are really saying is that you believe that you know that X. I may believe that you do NOT know that X. Which one of us is right? How do we get access to that objective verification? Please do enlighten me. You must have God's eye view, which I have suggested can only result in a Libertarian form of freedom. If you should disagree with that, then the result will be simply that one cannot ever know anything, which was what I was saying was the result of a deterministic world view.
"Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason." John Belushi, "Animal House" "I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them." G.W. Bush

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2120

Posted 10/12/09 - 05:58 AM:	#69
Hanover wrote: All the elements are not subjective. Truth is objective. If I state that there is a rock, I am either (1) correct, or (2) incorrect depending upon the truth of the existence of a rock. But you have no infallible access to the truth of that statement – thus any assertion by you as to its truth or falsity is SUBJECTIVE – THIS is my point. When you claim that you KNOW rocks exist you are relying on the believed correctness of three subjective assessments of the JTB elements (a) your belief in the truth that rocks exist (b) your belief that rocks exist and (c) your belief that you have justification for believing that rocks exist. Hanover wrote: Your statement that there is a "God's-eye view" is an admission on your part that there is an objectively right or wrong view of the world. The fact that none of us are God is obvious, and for that reason, we don't have his perspective. None of that changes the fact that you are admitting to an objective "truth" when you reference an objective (God's) perspective. There may indeed be an objective truth, but if we agree that only God has access to this objective truth then we also agree that mere mortals are limited to our subjective beliefs about the world. And that includes our assessment of all the three elements of knowledge. Hanover wrote: On the other hand, if I believe a painting is pretty, I am infallibly correct because prettiness is purely subjective. In which case the question of “objective truth” does not apply. Hanover wrote: The question was a yes or no question, and it continues to go unanswered by you. I'm not suggesting you can't explain your answer after providing a yes or a no, but you are simply refusing to respond at this point. Sorry, Hanover, but again a false statement from you – I answered very clearly - perhaps you do not read my replies? reincarnated wrote: You stipulate that (unknown to you) your justification is (objectively) NOT valid – hence you do NOT know that X How can I possibly make it more clear than this? Hanover wrote: At any rate, in your analysis above, one's belief that something is true does not thereby make that belief "knowledge" unless the belief is in fact true. You are arguing for solipsism here, suggesting that nothing can ever be known. Again a false statement. I have said all along (how many times do you wish me to repeat it?) that though we may indeed possess knowledge, we cannot know infallibly. This is not solipsism, this is simply a recognition that we do not possess infallible knowledge (about the world). If you believe that you possess infallible knowledge about the world, then perhaps you could explain how it is that you arrive at your infallible knowledge? I’m interested…. reincarnated wrote: You stipulate that (unknown to you) your justification is (objectively) NOT valid hence you do NOT know that X (BUT my question would be how do you get access to such “objective” information?) Hanover wrote: And my response is that you are asking this question simply to avoid responding to the question. Try reading my response for a change – the answer is in there, I assure you (in upper case no less!)! Hanover wrote: It's a hypothetical, which means you are forced to deal with the premises as provided. This evasion allows you to avoid the real problem presented by the Gettier objection. If you acknowledge that justifications are objective, then you have abandoned JTB theory. If you claim that justifications are subjective, then you are forced to admit that I "knew" Joe was on his way over to my house based upon the fact that someone who was not Joe, but who I thought was Joe, was seen walking towards my house. Let’s try again, shall we? You believe (on the basis of JTB) that you knew that Joe was coming over to your house. I claim that I have information inaccessible to you, and based on this (also on the basis of JTB) I believe that you did NOT know that Joe was coming over to your house. At least one of us is wrong (incorrect) in our belief about your knowledge. Who is wrong? To answer this question we need God’s-eye view, which we do not have. How do you propose to solve this conundrum? Hanover wrote: Here you admit what you've been trying so desperately trying to aviod saying, although it's only an implicit admission. Your statement that you cannot know "whether your justification is objectively valid or not," certainly implies that justifications have an objective truth value, although they are simply unknowable. I have never denied this. Justifications, just like truths, may have objective truth-values, but the point you seem to keep ignoring is that we have no infallible access to this truth value! All each of us has is our individual epistemic perspectives, based on our beliefs. One of us may be “correct”, but how do we test infallibly? Hanover wrote: You must have God's eye view, which I have suggested can only result in a Libertarian form of freedom. And how does it work? What happens if I claim that I have this form of freedom, and I therefore believe I have God’s-eye view, and you also claim that you have this form of freedom, and you therefore also believe you have God’s-eye view, but nevertheless the two of us disagree on what we believe to be true? What then? Hanover wrote: If you should disagree with that, then the result will be simply that one cannot ever know anything, which was what I was saying was the result of a deterministic world view. We’ve been here before – apologies if I sound like a stuck record but you don’t seem to be understanding the following: That we cannot know infallibly does NOT imply that we cannot know. That we cannot possess infallible knowledge does NOT imply that we cannot possess knowledge. You seem to be insisting on infallible knowledge, claiming that if we cannot know infallibly then we cannot know at all (which is false), but at the same time you cannot explain how you arrive at this infallible knowledge. Think about it.
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Atlanta

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 919

Posted 10/12/09 - 09:57 AM:	#70
reincarnated wrote: But you have no infallible access to the truth of that statement …quot; thus any assertion by you as to its truth or falsity is SUBJECTIVE …quot; THIS is my point. When you claim that you KNOW rocks exist you are relying on the believed correctness of three subjective assessments of the JTB elements (a) your belief in the truth that rocks exist (b) your belief that rocks exist and (c) your belief that you have justification for believing that rocks exist. Our dispute therefore revolves around the fact that we are not using the term "subjective" in a consistent manner. Subjective is the opposite of objective. Uncertainty is the opposite of certainty. If you are saying that justifications are objectively true or false and statements about reality are objectively true of false, then you are not arguing that knowledge is subjective. What you are simply saying is that any assertion we make about the world is made without certainty. That is, you are not arguing that knowledge is subjective; you're just arguing that it's uncertain. Subjective truths are those truths that are true if the subject says it is so (e.g. "the picture is pretty," to the moral relativist, "murder is bad"). Objective truths are those that are true regardless of what the subject believes (e.g. "the rock exists," to the moral absolutist, "murder is bad"). When you say, "there is a rock before me," that is not a subjective truth; it's just an uncertain belief. The point of this distinction is critical with regard to the Gettier objection. To simply assert that one can never be certain whether he possesses knowledge has no bearing on the objective nature of justifications. If knowlege only exists of a rock when (1) a rock exists and (2) the justification for the rock existing is a true justification, and (3) you believe there is a rock, then you are no longer arguing standard JTB theory, but you have modified it in response to Gettier's objection. Specifically, #2 has been modified to state that justifications must be of a certain type in order for them to be considered true justifications. That is, justifications are not valid simply because the subject declares them so. The debate would then shift to the various theories of justifications to determine what makes a justification valid and what does not. That is, once you admit that a justification is not subjective, then you must then figure out what is an appropriate objective justification. The fact that you will never know when you have arrived at what constitutes an "objective" justification is simply a problem with certainty, not subjectivity. For that reason, I would assert that your argument as you've presented it accepts the validity of the Gettier objection, yet it doesn't fully respond to it.
"Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason." John Belushi, "Animal House" "I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them." G.W. Bush

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.