The Siege of the Thing-in-itself: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » The Siege of the Thing-in-itself » The Siege of the Thing-in-itself

Page: 1 2

The Siege of the Thing-in-itself

Theo
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 30, 2008

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 44

Posted 11/01/08 - 07:57 AM:	#11
reincarnated wrote: This is a philosophy forum, after all, hence I think it reasonable that the philosophical definition of "knowledge " applies. Check http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/[/quote] What is unreasonable is that you seem to think there is a single, immutable, 'philosophical' definition of knowledge. I am sufficiently 'acquainted with mainstream philosophy' to know otherwise. Or do you consider people like Neurath and Quine to be obscure? reincarnated wrote: And yes, infallible knowledge is unattainable (hence solipsism still has adherents) The flat Earth theory still has adherents, and their number compared to that of the solipsist is staggering.

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

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

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2145

Posted 11/01/08 - 08:54 AM:	#12
Theo wrote: What is unreasonable is that you seem to think there is a single, immutable, 'philosophical' definition of knowledge. I am sufficiently 'acquainted with mainstream philosophy' to know otherwise. Or do you consider people like Neurath and Quine to be obscure? If you wish to propose an alternative definition, please feel free. Theo wrote: The flat Earth theory still has adherents, and their number compared to that of the solipsist is staggering. If you believe you can convince the flat earth adherents they are wrong, please feel free. But I'm not sure what relevance this has to the OP.
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")

Theo
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 30, 2008

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 44

Posted 11/02/08 - 06:53 AM:	#13
reincarnated wrote: If you wish to propose an alternative definition, please feel free. That would require a new topic, and while it's a fascinating subject I won't be able to access the forum for a few weeks. So perhaps when I come back. But I believe I have already given an outline: I call knowledge a belief justified by the scientific method. In any case, this is irrelevant to both the thread and our discussion; as far as I can see we both think the same thing but we express it in different ways. reincarnated wrote: If you believe you can convince the flat earth adherents they are wrong, please feel free. But I'm not sure what relevance this has to the OP. It had relevance to your assertion that, since infallible knowledge is unobtainable, there are still solipsists. Well, first of all the inexistence of such knowledge (which, I think, anybody admits today) doesn't imply that the solipsists are right, just that there is a miniscule chance they might be (well obviously not all of them). My point was that solipsism is about as likely to be true as the Earth being flat or me being the Queen of Norway, i. e. for all practical purposes we can say it's not true.

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

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

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2145

Posted 11/02/08 - 07:10 AM:	#14
Theo wrote: as far as I can see we both think the same thing but we express it in different ways. Absolutely not. The widely accepted definition of knowledge includes the fact that knowledge entails truth. You seem to believe that someone can "know" something which is untrue. That's not knowledge, its simply a (mistaken) belief. Theo wrote: My point was that solipsism is about as likely to be true as the Earth being flat or me being the Queen of Norway, i. e. for all practical purposes we can say it's not true. That may be your belief - but you may be wrong - and if you are wrong then its simply a mistaken belief, and does not constitute knowledge.
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")

Theo
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 30, 2008

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 44

Posted 11/02/08 - 07:18 AM:	#15
reincarnated wrote: Absolutely not. The widely accepted definition of knowledge includes the fact that knowledge entails truth. You seem to believe that someone can "know" something which is untrue. That's not knowledge, its simply a (mistaken) belief. You seem to hold that belief in external objects is useful and justified, and so do I; the terminology we use to describe our beliefs is irrelevant. And as for something being true or false, how on Earth do you propose to check this definitely? And if you can't, what is the use of such a stringent criterion?

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

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

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2145

Posted 11/02/08 - 09:41 AM:	#16
Theo wrote: And as for something being true or false, how on Earth do you propose to check this definitely? And if you can't, what is the use of such a stringent criterion? That's the difference between ontology and epistemology, and the whole reason why I insisted that infallible knowledge is unattainable. There are truths in this world (ontology) but it is debatable whether we can ever know those truths for certain (epistemology). Thus one may possess knowledge (if one possesses a justified belief in something which is in fact true), but one can (almost) never possess infallible knowledge (because the things we believe are true may in fact turn out to be false).
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")

brainpharte
Huh?

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 07, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 968

Posted 11/02/09 - 06:56 AM:	#17
Once again it is apparent that "knowledge" and "justified" and "true" are ambiguous terms that add nothing to our understanding of the issue, but rather confuse and muddle it. All that is required to disambiguate the matter is to explicate the epistemic criteria that a claim can meet. Once this is communicated, insisting that the claim also is "true" or "justified" or counts as "knowledge" imparts no additional understanding of the matter. "True" and "justified" and "knowledge" are useful shorthands only to those who tacitly understand and agree with the criteria that the claim can meet (as among a group of scientists, or among a group of religious believers, or among a group of economists, etc.)
"I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit. "No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened to it along the way."

Escape
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 02, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 11/02/09 - 10:21 AM:	#18
This is a harsh question, for no one should get mistaken in using the terms "Space" and "Time" as defined in one paradigm and applying them to another. Kant and Einstein do not really write about the same thing. The point in Kant argumentation is that space and time are not knowable 'per se'. They are (essentially) forms of the way we arrange our perceptions. And this is still a valid judgment, since one very important question Kant puts is the following: if shape data are given by the relationships between the (assumed ponctual) elements of a body, then how can we distinguish between a left hand and its image in a mirror. In other words, what is at odds here is the question of chirality. And Wittgenstein also wondered about the same issue, see the Tractatus. This is still a pertinent scientific question!

Page: 1 2

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