Drange's argument from nonbelief

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"And you would know everything ABOUT those theories.

But you wouldn't KNOW that life evolved or that quantum physics is true unless
you also believed that life did evolve and that quantum physics is true."


you are taking liberties with the english language. you just said "you would know but you wouldn't KNOW". do you realize that by writing the sa ...[text shortened]... ts of this discussion. you insist belief is necessary for knowledge, i say they are independent.

i guess we have reached the limits of this discussion. you insist belief is necessary for knowledge, i say they are independent.

I provided an analysis of knowledge -- one quite commonly held -- which consists of what I take to be the necessary and sufficient components for one's knowing that P. Since you have pooh-poohed it (though it's not even clear you actually understood it, especially with your all thumbs understanding of the Gettier condition), please provide your own analysis...you know, the one that putatively adequately captures knowledge that P but does not include belief that P as a necessary condition. Come on, offer it up and let us discuss it....

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Can you really not see the difference between holding information and knowing that information is true?
And that a vital component of that difference is belief that it is true?
If I may summarize, it sounds as though you are saying that knowledge can be false, i.e., if I am convinced that some information is true, thereby making it my knowledge, t ...[text shortened]... city of the information is not a factor in determining whether or not it qualifies as knowledge.[/b]

No you can't summarise because you have no freaking clue what you are talking about.


The criteria for knowledge is generally given as Justified, True, Belief + however you get
around the Gettier conditions.

JTB covers most situations and is a reasonable approximation because Gettier conditions are
relatively speaking rare.

As you can see, a requirement for knowledge be that it is true.

So, under this definition, knowledge can't be false.


Although obviously you can think you know something and it turns out to be false.
However under this definition you would have failed the justification criteria, and/or the
Gettier condition.


No what I was saying is that you can have information that you 'know'... as in the data
is stored in your brain, but that that information is not true.

Harry Potter is a good example. I have lots of information in my brain about Harry Potter.

However Harry Potter is a fictional story, and that information doesn't point to any real thing,
it's not true.

So you can have information that is true, and you can have information that is false.

So the simple fact that you have information in your brain, does not mean you have knowledge.

You need something more.

First off, to be knowledge the information must be true.


So in the case of RJHinds and evolution, he probably has true information about evolution in there...
mixed in with a load of false information.

However he still doesn't know that evolution is true because he thinks, he believes, that that information
is false.

He must not only have information about evolution, and that information be true... He must Believe that
that information is true. And then we also say he needs to be sufficiently justified in believing that the
information is true.

You have to believe that the information in your brain is true before it can be claimed that you know something.



This is confused by the fact that we refer to factual information in books (for example) as knowledge.

But we need to make a distinction between what a person knows. And what information they hold in their
brain.


I'm, lousy at times tables, and have to work out many multiplications from scratch rather than being able to
recite them by rote.

So to me the person who learned their times tables by heart and was able to recite them would be a good
source of knowledge for me... Even though they themselves wouldn't know what the correct answer was.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No you can't summarise because you have no freaking clue what you are talking about.


The criteria for knowledge is generally given as Justified, True, Belief + however you get
around the Gettier conditions.

JTB covers most situations and is a reasonable approximation because Gettier conditions are
relatively speaking rare.

As you can see, ...[text shortened]... ce of knowledge for me... Even though they themselves wouldn't know what the correct answer was.

Oh.
My.

You are very confused, aren't you?

I am merely quoting you verbatim and summarizing according to your own words, and despite the summary being an identical representation to your words, you claim I don't know what I am speaking of.
Now, reading this gobblygook mishmash of double-speak, I can see why you don't recognize your own thoughts: you don't even know your own thoughts to begin with.

Just so.

So, under this definition, knowledge can't be false.
If knowledge cannot be false, regarding the person who knows the correct answer to "2 x 2" but doesn't understand it: what does he have? Information?
He believes it is the right answer, so why not knowledge?

Harry Potter is a good example. I have lots of information in my brain about Harry Potter.
No, Harry Potter is a lousy example.
You already know it is a work of fiction, so stated by its author.
The only thing your information is good for is to respond to trivial questions about the imaginary world.
No more, no less.
You cannot begin to liken it to anything akin to actual knowledge.

So in the case of RJHinds and evolution, he probably has true information about evolution in there...
mixed in with a load of false information.
Or, he has considered the information, concluded that it is rubbish--- a work of fiction, if you will--- and rejected it as such.

So to me the person who learned their times tables by heart and was able to recite them would be a good
source of knowledge for me... Even though they themselves wouldn't know what the correct answer was.
I think you're half right.
It is conceivable for a person to know a huge swath of the times tables (and idiot savant, for example) and not understand a thing about performing any on their own.
But they still have that information.
They still believe it is true.
They have knowledge of the times tables, regardless of their inability to exhibit any other function of them.
If entrance into heaven were predicated on knowing the following answer: what is 2 x 2? they would be granted entrance, no matter how little they understood how it worked.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH

I am merely quoting you verbatim and summarizing according to your own words,

I don't even know what the discussion is about but when I read;
summarizing according to your own words
I know it's going to be nonsense.

How can anyone summarise in someone else's own words?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I don't even know what the discussion is about but when I read;
summarizing according to your own words
I know it's going to be nonsense.

How can anyone summarise in someone else's own words?

Listen, you half-bred nitwit...

In using the person's own words, I make a comprehensive and usually brief abstract, recapitulation, or compendium of previously stated facts or statements.

Now.
You were saying?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I make a comprehensive and usually brief abstract, recapitulation,

comprehensive recapitulation
isn't that a bit oxymoronic?

You are in danger of taking over from RJHinds as "The Oxy-Moron".
(I currently have you in close second and I'm not taking any more bets on you.)

Originally posted by googlefudge
No you can't summarise because you have no freaking clue what you are talking about.


The criteria for knowledge is generally given as Justified, True, Belief + however you get
around the Gettier conditions.

JTB covers most situations and is a reasonable approximation because Gettier conditions are
relatively speaking rare.

As you can see, ...[text shortened]... ce of knowledge for me... Even though they themselves wouldn't know what the correct answer was.

However Harry Potter is a fictional story, and that information doesn't point to any real thing, it's not true.

that would be a case of something proven to not be true.


we are talking about the case where
1. P is true,
2. P is proven to be true
3. S knows 1 and 2
4. S doesn't believe 1 and 2.

So in the end, we are only arguing if 4 influences 3 in any way and that, i believe, is just a matter off how you define "know". If you define it as "have knowledge and believe it" or if you define it "have knowledge".

I am sure you agree that 4 doesn't influence 1 and 2 in any way.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Listen, you half-bred nitwit...

In using the person's own words, I make a comprehensive and usually brief abstract, recapitulation, or compendium of previously stated facts or statements.

Now.
You were saying?

i was actually feeling sad that google started with the name calling on you, which i perceived as rather uncalled for.


sad feeling gone. you are the same freaky and one should still ignore you.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
However Harry Potter is a fictional story, and that information doesn't point to any real thing, it's not true.

that would be a case of something proven to not be true.


we are talking about the case where
1. P is true,
2. P is proven to be true
3. S knows 1 and 2
4. S doesn't believe 1 and 2.

So in the end, we are only arguing if 4 influen ...[text shortened]... define it "have knowledge".

I am sure you agree that 4 doesn't influence 1 and 2 in any way.

Ahhhh. I think I see the problem.


Ok lets go with RJHinds and evolution again.

1. P is True. Yes evolution by natural selection is true.

2. P is proven to be true. Again, yes evolution has been proven to be true.

3. S knows 1 and 2. NO. RJHinds [S] does NOT know 1 and 2.

4. S doesn't believe 1 and 2. Yes RJHinds does not believe 1 and 2.


RJHinds does not KNOW that evolution is true, and he doesn't know that
it's been proven.

What he knows is that WE think that evolution is true and that we THINK
that it is proven.

And he believes that we are wrong.


The problem here is that you are having as a postulate what you are trying to prove.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
comprehensive recapitulation
isn't that a bit oxymoronic?

You are in danger of taking over from RJHinds as "The Oxy-Moron".
(I currently have you in close second and I'm not taking any more bets on you.)

Bro, do you even read?

For one, the latter part of my response was a direct quote of the definition of summary, as found on dictionary.com. To wit: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/summary

For two, comprehensive refers to a large scope or covering much; whereas recapitulation is simply repeating (or summarizing) the topic at hand. Neither cancels the other out or stands in opposition to the other, thereby rendering the words "a bit oxymoronic," although there is some doubt as to whether or not you are using that term as properly defined.

Here's what makes your post sad:
• You thought enough to post, but not enough to think it out;
• Someone else read what you posted and considered it worthy.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Bro, do you even read?

For one, the latter part of my response was a direct quote of the definition of summary, as found on dictionary.com. To wit: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/summary

For two, comprehensive refers to a large scope or covering much; whereas recapitulation is simply repeating (or summarizing) the topic at hand ...[text shortened]... , but not enough to think it out;
• Someone else read what you posted and considered it worthy.

Of all your insults "bro" is by far the worst.

And if you cannot see the contradiction in "a comprehensive summary"
then no amount of explaining will help you. And although the words are
not diametrically opposite I still think they are "a bit oxymoronic".

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Of all your insults "bro" is by far the worst.

And if you cannot see the contradiction in "a comprehensive summary"
then no amount of explaining will help you. And although the words are
not diametrically opposite I still think they are "a bit oxymoronic".

Do your parents know you're on the internet?

You put the words 'comprehensive' and 'recapitulation' together, and then proceeded to complain they were oxymoronic.

Then, you change the complaint to the phrase "a comprehensive summary," although these are--- again-- your phrasings.

Do you have anything to add to the conversation, or are you just having a laugh?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Do your parents know you're on the internet?

No.
My father passed away and my mother is in a care home in UK. I really
should phone her soon as we haven't spoken in a while. She doesn't understand the internet so there is not any value in telling her when I'm on
or when I'm off. But thanks for asking anyway.

How are your folks?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You put the words 'comprehensive' and 'recapitulation' together, and then proceeded to complain they were oxymoronic.

Then, you change the complaint to the phrase "a comprehensive summary," although these are--- again-- your phrasings.[/b]

In your previous post you were explaining how "comprehensive recapitulation"
was not oxymoronic and went on to define recapitulation as "summary".
I was trying to help you understand by replacing "recapitulation" with
"summary". I thought it would make it easier for you but sadly I failed.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
No.
My father passed away and my mother is in a care home in UK. I really
should phone her soon as we haven't spoken in a while. She doesn't understand the internet so there is not any value in telling her when I'm on
or when I'm off. But thanks for asking anyway.

How are your folks?

Mother dead, but dad's doing alright in the Pacific Northwest.
Just moved recently, to a place a little closer to town.
Makes it easier to get around and access the things he needs.
I worry about him, in a way, although he's always seemed so self-sufficient.
Hard to imagine him as needing things at all, even though he's in his mid-70's now.

But I digress...

Is there a point that you wish to make?