Originally posted by LA Ute
View Post
Faith and Knowledge
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by UtahDan View PostSmart ass.
“There is a great deal of difference in believing something still, and believing it again.”
― W.H. Auden
"God made the angels to show His splendour - as He made animals for innocence and plants for their simplicity. But men and women He made to serve Him wittily, in the tangle of their minds."
-- Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Comment
-
Nice touch. A parting swipe like that always helps to make your points more persuasive.Originally posted by SonOFpeRdiTioNSorry if I don't respond quickly. Unlike some of you, I have a job and a family and other things that takes my time and presence and attention."There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
"It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
"Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster
Comment
-
I hear you saying that "truth" is a separate element from justification. Justification I think I understand. There we are just talking about evidence which tends to prove or disprove a thing. I guess what I am saying is that I cannot think of a definition of "truth" that is not simply looking at evidence and deciding when you have enough. IOW, what is the test for "truth" in this context?Originally posted by SonOFpeRdiTioN"This" referring to what? I have repeatedly stated that among professional epistemologists, knowledge = justified, true belief. Justification, truth-value and belief are each separate elements. As you state it, "how you know it is true" (or as I first encountered that topic as Truman Madsen phrased it, "how do you know that you know"), that is an issue of justification, not of truth.
As I've tried to state in earlier posts in this thread, there are competing theories as to when a person's belief is "justified", and there competing theories as to how to determine the "truth-value" of a belief or proposition.
Perhaps what you are trying to say is that you can't truly be "justified" unless the belief is actually true. No epistemologist is going to argue with you on that point, but in terms of defining knowledge, philosophers have to distinguish justification and truth because they are distinct elements.
At the risk of repeating myself, my own point of view is that professional epistemologists have slightly gone off course with their definition. IMHO, knowledge = true, belief. Justification merely plays a role in measuring how strong or weak that knowledge is.
Maybe an example would be helpful. I will posit that I know Jeff Lebowski has red hair. Can you walk me through how I would meet the test for knowledge you have laid out?
Comment
Comment