2017

stop mansplaining
it's her fucking hair, she'll do whateve she wants

why? because it is gendered? or because of things like this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma

>t. never read Hegel

It's as if, like, we're setting the ground before us as we proceed to walk over it.

>hegel
not relevant at all to epistemology. apply yourself

The capitalized words aren't random, they are the verb and the object of the phrase, emphasizing WHAT needs WHAT-ING.

>wewposting this hard

'wew'.

I'm a dude and have similar hair, albeit shorter. Chicks tell me to never change it. I get pussy, user, do (you)?

how is hegel relevant to contemporary epistemology?

Explain to me, please, the state of 'contemporary epistemology'.

you should try reading some books instead of asking for a tl;dr version, don't you think?

>i did a quick google search of the term and realized it was completely empty of content so i'll save just try and save face in the perennial fashion of Veeky Forums

that's (you), friend!

>I spouted some retarded platitude about Hegel (which I've barely read) and now I'm trying and save face by sticking to a red herring
if you want a quick rundown on epistemology, read BonJour's Epistemology: Classic Problems and Contemporary Responses
Hegel isn't relevant to our contemporary understanding of the conception of knowledge, but please, I'd be delighted to be proven wrong

Knowledge = Memory of true statements and logically sound arguments

Find a flaw with this defintion

So if I remember a true statement but don't believe in it I still know it?

>user is a sports fan and degenerate gambler
>'damn, Team A is gonna win the big game"
>user bets on Team A winning the big game
>Team A wins the big game
>user recalls his statement that "Team A is gonna win the big game", therefore he has a memory of a true statement

did he *know* team A was going to win? No, because he isn't a fucking psychic

>recommended book is literally the first ping back of the search

You're not instilling much confidence in me

>So if I remember a true statement but don't believe in it I still know it?

Yes. Belief is irrelevant to knowledge.

>'damn, Team A is gonna win the big game"
>user bets on Team A winning the big game

Let's look at the hypothetical statement here:

>Team a is going to win the game

Which, when we unpack the implied premise, is:

>Team a is certain to win the game

And we find that this is a false statement, because at this time there is no certainty that team a will win. B

Because this is a false statement, it is not knowledge.

it makes perfect sense when you accept the existence of the human soul as distinct from the physical self.

>Belief is irrelevant to knowledge.
Wrong

>Team a is certain to win the game
No, the statement concers whether or not they're going to win the game; certainty doesn't even enter the question because it isn't actual knowledge, but it is a true statement since team a won

>Belief is irrelevant to knowledge
how could you know something you don't believe is true? jfc

please elaborate

There's no nonproblematic definition of knowledge because knowledge in a broad sense is already problematic before it can be narrowed down to something specific enough to be a useful concept. Epistemology is completely bankrupt because the concepts it lies on are flawed at the ground level.

We can define knowledge most generally as a kind of propositional attitude towards a state of affairs, fact, etc. that happens to hold any number of cognitive virtues. I think it would still be uncontroversial of me to say that at least one of these has to be truth.

But then we say "I know X" means that "I hold a special kind of propositional attitude towards X that is true". How do we justify the assertion of its truth? We can't appeal to the state of affairs because whether X *is* "really" represented faithfully by our representations is exactly what's in question when we're trying to figure out whether a knowledge claim is warranted. People often deal with this problem by moving towards pragmatism but this just seems like a really lazy solution.

>but it is a true statement since team a won

When the statement was uttered it was not a true statement, BECAUSE there was no certainty at the time.

Stop trying to dance around the fact that the statement was made before the result of the game was certain.

Believing is a conscious action. You can know things unconsciously. Therefore belief is not necessarily relevant to knowledge.

Maybe it doesn't exist?

I love her music so much. What made you use a picture of her?

>When the statement was uttered it was not a true statement, BECAUSE there was no certainty at the time.
Certainty isn't relevant here. The statement concerns things to come, and not whether you know it for sure or even know it.

>Believing is a conscious action. You can know things unconsciously
You can't know something you don't believe is true. Try and create such a proposition, I dare you!

>nonproblematic
that subhuman diction

great post

I don't know

>t. femanon or male faggot

>Try and create such a proposition, I dare you!

Ok. This thought experiment, just warning you, involves non-human individuals.

A non-sentient animal, say a bumblebee, see's a cat. The bee is not even capable of belief, so one cannot say that the bee believes the cat to be a danger. But, the bee does KNOW that the cat is a danger, and will avoid it.

There, you have knowledge without belief.

A bumblebee could only know a cat means danger if she believes it means danger, otherwise it's acting out of some non-rational impulse of survival.
We can't ascertain for sure what are the cognitive capabilities of such animals, so what's left is basically a guessing game. Try and create an example with humans, please

>We can't ascertain for sure what are the cognitive capabilities of such animals, so what's left is basically a guessing game

You're not wrong. I was merely trying to prove a principle. But ok.

An individual, let's use myself, is taking an exam. One of the questions asks what the population of Singapore is.

Three weeks before the exam I was taught that the population of Singapore is roughly 5.4 million. Through whatever mechanism memory works, I have a memory somewhere in my brain of being taught this. This memory contains a visual of the number on the whiteboard at school, as well as the sound of my teacher telling the class.

During the exam, however, my brain becomes overwhelmed with the tasks in front of me. For a moment, I can no longer access the memory from the classroom. All I have are fragments. The digits 5 and 4 jump out to me, but in the wrong order. Nevertheless, I start to believe that the population of Singapore is around 4.5 million. I believe this so firmly that I write this down as my answer, and even feel good about it. In this instance, I believe that the population is 4.5, but this is incorrect, so I do not know it (though it may have the appearance of knowledge).

After the test my brain begins to clear and it becomes less foggy. I have clear access to my memories once again, and to my horror I realise that I put the wrong answer.

In this scenario I knew the right answer all along, but there was a time when I believed it was something else. Hence, there was simultaneously belief without knowledge, and knowledge without belief.

someone post her boyfriend

What the fuck do you modern idiots have a "non-problematic definition of"? I bet you don't even know what a definition is.

It's called "information", you fag. Knowledge is when your information turns to be helpful.

information has no requirement to be true, friendo

>>Team a is certain to win the game
>And we find that this is a false statement, because at this time there is no certainty that team a will win. B
>Because this is a false statement, it is not knowledge.

What if he says "team A will win"
Because he has "knowledge" that team b is planning on blowing/fixing the game, everyone is in on it, and everyone signed a harsh contract promising they will blow the game (or else they will die, family too).

Game time comes around, and every member on team b chickens out, and trys as hard as they can to win the game, going into the bottom of the 9th, last out, tie game, they have been trying as hard as they can to win, and strikes out, next inning other team wins, team A wins.

Did the person know team A would win, there were tremendous odds in his beliefs favor (should have technically been near 100% at least that is the concept I am trying to portray with thought experiment), and yet, it was very very possible, for the opposite to occur, and the reason he was near 100% certain, turned into the reason he shouldnt have been certain, because they were trying 100% opposite, but still due to them, even though they were trying opposite, created the necessary condition, as was first thought and planned for.

(the may well weighted, tested, measured, cautious theories of science, is beyond the best bet, of holding 'facts' about our agreeable relationships with objects and/in the world, even if I do not know 100% what a car is, and even if we are brains in a vat, 'if I say, there is a car heading toward you, watch out', you do not watch out, and the car hits you, we figure there is a chance, I perceived 'something' 'coming toward you', and I "knew" that if I was right about my perception of "massive object trajectory" that, bad/undesirable action will occur.

The car hits you, no matter the epistemological skepticism, no matter my ignorance of 'all the components of a car', I generally uttered a 'truth/Truth about objective reality', in objective reality 'something must have been moving', we agree there are possibilities for me to say "move" and for you to move, either seeing as it is a good thing to do, or believing me, or before hand me saying "I want to test out this hypothesis, that you know what the word 'move' means, so when I say the word 'move' you perform the action I think we agree to believe is the correlate.

In objective reality, I knew a truth, between distinct general matters (person, mortal, car/object, 'fast/movement/trajectory/velocity/heavy') that if I did not say to the person "there is a car coming toward you move out the way", he would/did get hit, if he listened he would have not. The extremity of the stark conclusions, presumes that there is in facts, very much something of someway, that appears to be some knowable, and that we can grasp details about their shape, size, essence, make up, movement; in short, what Science has been and is doing, and will be able to do.

Ok, so the hypothetical person has been told that it is extremely likely that team A will win.

He still does not have certainty.

But your premise "team A will win" is still the same as saying "team A is certain to win", unless you specify otherwise.

We run into the same problem. This premise is still false because certainty cannot be guaranteed, no matter how close it is. Because it is false, it cannot be known, only believed.

Now, if certainty was absolutely guaranteed, (say, for example, team B was actually comprised of robots programmed to lose) THEN the person would KNOW that team A was going to lose.

Conversely, we can look at the situation as you stated it, with it being highly likely that team A will win (but NOT certain). In this situation, the person could not know that team A will win, but they COULD know that it would be highly likely that they would win.

Epistemology is a meme

Adorno agrees with me

Pragmatism is perfect.

I'm leaving.

leaving what?

disgusting hair

I just googled Bell's Theorem. I think I'm a superdeterminist. Why don't people accept superdeterminism? I always assumed it was true. I don't even see how it's inconsistent with apparent free will.

KEK

>superdeterminist
>I don't even see how it's inconsistent with apparent free will.

What is that. Explain.

You'd be hard pressed to find a physicist or philosopher who accepts superdeterminism as an adequate interpretation of Bell's Theorem. Even Bell only saw it as a metaphysical loophole that while in principle cannot be ruled out, is extraordinarily unlikely to be the solution, as it would effectively require a vast cosmic conspiracy in which nature has manipulated a universal sequence of backward light-cones stretching all the way back to the Big Bang just so the outcome of some experiences with entangled particles would come out correlated in a way that appears non-classical. It's rather absurd and is about as effective as invoking God to explain earthquakes. It would also spell the end of science.

muh logic muhfugga

Science is already dead though and always has been.

Well that's a pretty vacuous statement coming from you. At least in the context of superdeterministic interpretations, science is killed because nature can manipulate and predetermine the outcomes of experiments without any recourse to supposed "laws of physics" and the free will of the experimenter is also compromised.

I'm not him.

One looking for order will always find it, even if no such order exists or is possible.

What makes you qualified to proclaim the death of science and why should anyone listen to your nonsensical ramblings?

>But your premise "team A will win" is still the same as saying "team A is certain to win"
this is wrong

>nonsensical
>qualifications
Stop deluding yourself.

So nothing then

dude you need QUALIFICATIONS BECAUSE OTHERWISE YOUR WRONG LOL U NEED TO CONVINCE ME

Autism Awareness Month has passed. Take your glorified platonism somewhere else.

Read Less Than Nothing by our beloved Zizek.

What's the point of even commenting if you're not going to present an argument? You made an entirely irrelevant contribution to the topic that was being discussed in the first place. Either say something of substance or say nothing at all

>arguments are good because i said so
Autism Awareness Month has passed.

>otherwise it's acting out of some non-rational impulse of survival.
Isn't that precisely what it is doing though?

>haha i cant back up my sweeping generalizations that reaffirm what i want to believe so im going to screech like an autist

LOL

>back up
Why is this good?

Platonists are a fucking joke.

Because then you can say silly things like "science is dead" without reason or rationale. I refuse to believe that you think anyone would take you seriously without providing any basis for your claims or even why you believe it to be true. There's really no further point in having this discussion if you're not willing to discuss and want to haggle over empty air while screaming "platonist!" every other post as if that actually means anything

>how could you know something you don't believe is true? jfc
What are you talking about? Our brains are absolutely full of knowledge that we don't believe. Theory of mind allows us to remember knowledge that we think other people believe, even if we don't agree.

Shit, we can be agnostic about a statement but still know that statement to be a position.

As soon as we get theory of mind and an ounce of ability with hypothetical outcomes, we live in a world of relativism.

its silly becuz i dont like it ;c my will to truth is ordered by status rather than merit ;c

>nietzsche

That explains it. Sorry I don't talk to horsefuckers

someone else's knowledge=/=your own knowledge
you can only know something if you hold a belief that it's true

Knowledge is a relationship to what you consider to be a fact. If you keep looking for and at facts to find the secret to understanding what knowledge is, you're missing the point. That's like trying to understand the secret of jealousy by stalking on your own partner. That's paranoia. Jealousy is jealousy whether one is in fact cheating on you or not. In the same way, knowledge is knowledge even if it is "wrong" knowledge. It is a specific position in which you put what you see. Just like both lies and truths can take the place of fiction. Knowledge is as much pathological as ignorance. I can give you two sentences that are logically coherent with one another and you'd think you've got some knowledge from them, but all that you've got is a new excuse to be attached to this coherence between these two elements. Knowledge is not something you collect, but something that escapes you. You're not thinking about the sun revolving the earth, not in spite of you knowing it, but precisely because you know it. It is so certain to you, it doesn't exist. Beliefs must be restated again and again, in mantras, prayers, cheering for your team, said again and again, otherwise, they lose their power over you. Knowledge, on the other hand, is always something that is forgotten. It can emerge when challenged, but only before it crosses a certain threshold. Beyond that limit, you know it for sure and it has become something unthinkable. It is the certainty of life and death, the boring and inane absolute relationship that you have with the reality of a chair in the corner of the room.

my will to truth is ordered by whatever tickles my fancy atm

>nietzsche
sup reddit

Define memory.
Define true.
Define logic.
Define argument.

In short: define knowledge (using clear language that isn't retarded).

I'm waiting, user

>define this, define that
what's your fucking problem?

Justified true belief is good enough. The problem lies in the definition of said premises, especially justification.

You asked to find a flaw with your definition. The gaping semantic ambiguities seemed a good place to start. Unfortunately, user, much of philosophy has been the defining of terms. Meticulous work it is.

If I hurt your feelings wi, you might want to pick another interest.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/memory/
plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/
plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic/
plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/
here 2bh senpai

wow so logical omg
>unironic literal platonism

Could one say, knowledge is belief that is true?

I will save you from the nothing you've become

show the proof that language can define knowledge

Knowledge is not true, so no.

How, exactly?

>you can only know something if you hold a belief that it's true

Disagree

See: It has to be true, otherwise its just a belief, m8.

although there are some ultra contrived logical situations that cause it problems, knowledge as justified true belief is *good enough*

>he still hasn't read Williamson

you are at least a decade behind the current fads

>Williamson
fucking retarded
i'll stick to plantinga, thanks

who

Well if anything can 'define' knowledge, then by definition it must be language. And 'proof' for anything other than mathematic or scientific work is a hard thing to pin there chap—even there exists room for debate