Truth

Originally posted by veritas101
Say, propositional truth?

You accumulate what evidence you can, and evaluate it as best you can. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee of finding the truth - even for something like, "I believe stock X will go up today".

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Compare an atheist and a theist.

In the atheist's experience, there is no god that talks to her, so she counts that as evidence that there is no god. She believes that those who claim to speak with God are really just taking a part of their internal dialog and calling it "God".

In the theist's experience, he believes God speaks to him, and thus thi t does not reflect reality [either there is a God that talks to people, or there is not].

So are you saying that "it is impossible to know for sure whether or not God exists"?

If so, how do you know that the above statement is true? And for that matter, how can you know anything for sure then?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
You accumulate what evidence you can, and evaluate it as best you can. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee of finding the truth - even for something like, "I believe stock X will go up today".

Nevertheless, there is no guarantee of finding the truth - even for something like, "I believe stock X will go up today".

So I have no guarentee that what you are saying now is true?

Originally posted by veritas101
So are you saying that "it is impossible to know for sure whether or not God exists"?

If so, how do you know that the above statement is true? And for that matter, how can you know anything for sure then?

There is a difference between knowing something and knowing it with 100% certainty.

As far as we know, we could all be plugged into The Matrix, and our 'reality' is a simulation. Yet, I still know that the sun will come up tomorrow.

Originally posted by veritas101
[b]Nevertheless, there is no guarantee of finding the truth - even for something like, "I believe stock X will go up today".

So I have no guarentee that what you are saying now is true?[/b]

Why would you expect otherwise? There is always a chance that I could be mistaken, or ill-informed, etc. That goes to the point I'm trying to make. Humans are fallible, and do get things wrong on occasion, despite feeling assured that they "know".

Originally posted by SwissGambit
There is a difference between knowing something and knowing it with 100% certainty.

As far as we know, we could all be plugged into The Matrix, and our 'reality' is a simulation. Yet, I still know that the sun will come up tomorrow.

Do you think it is possible to know anything with 100% certainty?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Why would you expect otherwise? There is always a chance that I could be mistaken, or ill-informed, etc. That goes to the point I'm trying to make. Humans are fallible, and do get things wrong on occasion, despite feeling assured that they "know".

The point you are making is self-defeating. You are making a truth claim while at the same time claiming that the claim may not be true.

Originally posted by veritas101
The point you are making is self-defeating. You are making a truth claim while at the same time claiming that the claim may not be true.

If having knowledge required 100% certainty, then that would be a problem, yes. But it doesn't. If this overly rigorous standard is required for knowledge, then we could not really know anything at all.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
If having knowledge required 100% certainty, then that would be a problem, yes. But it doesn't. If this overly rigorous standard is required for knowledge, then we could not really know anything at all.

Well if don't have 100% certainty about any knowledge, then actually you know nothing at all for sure.

Originally posted by veritas101
Well if don't have 100% certainty about any knowledge, then actually you know nothing at all for sure.

"I think therefore I am" -- René Descartes

Even the above claim could be wrong, but to doubt it is a sure route to insanity. Once you accept it however, many other things become practically guaranteed 'knowns', ie if you doubt them, you should be doubting your existence and your sanity too.

Originally posted by twhitehead
"I think therefore I am" -- René Descartes

Even the above claim could be wrong, but to doubt it is a sure route to insanity. Once you accept it however, many other things become practically guaranteed 'knowns', ie if you doubt them, you should be doubting your existence and your sanity too.

So either you are 100% sure of your own existence or you are insane? (Since doubting your own existence implies that you are not 100% sure that you exist.)

Originally posted by veritas101
The point you are making is self-defeating. You are making a truth claim while at the same time claiming that the claim may not be true.

The point he makes is NOT self-defeating. Statements of the form "S knows that P, but it is possible that Q" (where Q, in fact, entails not-P) are sometimes known as concessive knowledge attributions. They are perfectly consistent within fallibilist views on knowledge; however, I think the modal construal is not always straightforward.

They sound self-defeating to you because you hold absurd infallibilist notions. I pity your impoverished views on knowledge.

Originally posted by veritas101
Well if don't have 100% certainty about any knowledge, then actually you know nothing at all for sure.

Shrug. Per my earlier statements, I don't see why this is a problem.

Originally posted by LemonJello
The point he makes is NOT self-defeating. Statements of the form "S knows that P, but it is possible that Q" (where Q, in fact, entails not-P) are sometimes known as concessive knowledge attributions. They are perfectly consistent within fallibilist views on knowledge; however, I think the modal construal is not always straightforward.

They sound se ...[text shortened]... u because you hold absurd infallibilist notions. I pity your impoverished views on knowledge.

Wow. Pwned.

By your thinking that modal construal is not always straightforward, do
you mean that people make statements that superficially seem to
rooted in infallibilism, but tacitly have concessions?

As in, 'I know that my wife is home right now because I called her a few
minutes ago.' It's possible that ~P (she went to the store), but I reason
that such a thing is unlikely since she said she'd be home all night.

If not, what do you mean by 'not straightforward?'

Nemesio

Originally posted by LemonJello
The point he makes is NOT self-defeating. Statements of the form "S knows that P, but it is possible that Q" (where Q, in fact, entails not-P) are sometimes known as concessive knowledge attributions. They are perfectly consistent within fallibilist views on knowledge; however, I think the modal construal is not always straightforward.

They sound se ...[text shortened]... u because you hold absurd infallibilist notions. I pity your impoverished views on knowledge.

I would rather say I'm realist. Why are my views on knowledge impoverished?

I seem to have more certainty than you do.