knowledge is different from what we know or think we know??
That’s a pretty strange use of the word ‘knowledge’.
What are you talking about… I am saying that even if we believe something to be true it doesn’t mean it is true, so how can that be knowledge, how can believing be knowledge, knowledge is information, facts, skills acquired through experiencing.
Knowledge is what we think we know. It is not what actually is. Therefore, it is possible to have wrong knowledge. It is possible to be mistaken. What is accepted to be knowledge today may be supplanted tomorrow. None the less, it is knowledge today.
Except it isn’t knowledge, that would be called misinformation or being ill informed. When we don’t have knowledge of something we can’t just make things up and say we have knowledge for it until another time… That defeats the very purpose of what facts are and information is.
That isn’t our knowing… that is our thinking we know.
One does not know which parts are wrong, which parts are misinformation, until one discovers other facts which lead to a revision.
Yeah, we think we know until we find out that we did not know … and then again we think we know until …
But not knowing, not without actual proof.
WW III Angry, you always want others to point out, to back up, to give evidence, whereas you yourself do never point out, never back up, never give evidence.
You say that you “think” or even “know”, but it always turns out that you believe.
Whoa there, hold your horses buddy. This is the first time I saw this response. I see now because James originally quoted someone else above this reply to me - I never read this. Don’t say I “never point out, never back up, never give evidence”. That’s just ridiculous.
Now - to answer James and thus back myself up, or so, on "how do I “know” the statement isn’t merely something it Believe to be true? " Well because of reason and logic. That reason is, you haven’t shown me how you know that I have belief, so you need to explain how. It’s not a matter of belief, its a matter of logical necessity for my understanding of your claim, James.
[quote=“WW_III_ANGRY”
Whoa there, hold your horses buddy. This is the first time I saw this response. I see now because James originally quoted someone else above this reply to me - I never read this. Don’t say I “never point out, never back up, never give evidence”. That’s just ridiculous.[/quote]
It’s absolutely true though:
I mean, you do it right here. James asks you for your justification of a position you have, and you serve it right back to him instead of providing an answer: ‘My justification is that you haven’t shown me why I’m wrong (to my own satisfaction) yet.’
I mean, holy shit. Did you really just justify your claim to knowledge on the grounds that nobody has shown that it isn’t knowledge yet? Is that your standard for knowledge- any old position (like, “I don’t have any beliefs”) that pops into your head that nobody else has disproven yet? You think that all of your understandingses (can’t say beliefs or you’ll get confused) are knowledge and not belief, and your justification for thinking so is that James hasn’t proven to you that he knows you have a belief. I mean fine, if you wanna go that way…I just don’t see why you’d apply the label ‘reason and logic’ to this sort of defensiveness or how you expect anybody to think you don’t have mere beliefs as you define them when you show your hand like this and reveal just how low your standard of evidence is.
[quote=“Uccisore”]
[quote=“WW_III_ANGRY”
Whoa there, hold your horses buddy. This is the first time I saw this response. I see now because James originally quoted someone else above this reply to me - I never read this. Don’t say I “never point out, never back up, never give evidence”. That’s just ridiculous.[/quote]
It’s absolutely true though:
No I am justifying how “In order to claim that I have belief, you’ll have to point it out and how it isn’t justified as knowledge,” isn’t something that I “just made isn’t merely something you believe to be true”
First of all, what I stated is a request to validate James stating how he can claim that I have belief (in general). I told him he needs to point out how anything I think is true (whatever that may be), is a belief and how it isn’t justified as knowledge. Whatever example that may be being key… there’s no specific claims that I believe something yet from James, as opposed to know it, or vice versa. But we haven’t gotten that far yet. You completely misunderstood what I had to “justify” here as "something I didn’t make up or believe to be true. I know I don’t understand how James can effectively claim I don’t have a belief. It’s pretty straightforward to request an example or reason to clarify how James can make that case. Why he chose that statement, however, is beyond me. Not a good choice.
James wants to know what makes your “I don’t have any beliefs” claim classify as knowledge, instead of a belief itself. The only justification I’ve seen you give so far is that James hasn’t proven you have beliefs yet. So yes, you are justifying a claim to knowledge (knowledge that you don’t have any beliefs) on the grounds that some particular guy hasn’t disproved it yet.
Ok, I didn’t take it as such, actually, So no, I am not justifying a claim that I have only knowledge or beliefs with my prior response to him (and Arminius).
Now to answer how I don’t have any belief’s and can classify that as knowledge rather than a belief - Ok sounds like a reasonable request. So you want to know how I know that I don’t have any beliefs, is that correct? If not - can you clarify your request?
Not quite. You made this claim:
“In order to claim that I have belief, you’ll have to point it out and how it isn’t justified as knowledge,”
So prove that this is knowledge, and not a mere belief.
And I have an example of my own. There have been several times in these past few threads that you have thought somebody meant one thing by a word they were using, when it turned out they meant something else. It seems to me that you thinking they meant one thing when they meant another would certainly classify as a belief by your own standards. For example when you mistakenly thought I was using the standard english definition of ‘cogency’ in our earlier conversation. You were wrong, and you were unjustified (had easy access to the information to correct yourself, were generally unaware of philosophical vernacular), and yet you thought it anyway. Seems like belief to me.
What exactly, do you mean by “this” when you state "prove that this is knowledge and not a mere belief?
Yes, I was wrong about cogency. So to understand how I don’t believe in other people’s communication in that level you are implying, you must understand how I understand and interpret language and communication such as this in general.
So if this answers your question generally, then feel free to not answer my first question in this response.
With language I never would claim to know what someone else is meaning. Words can very easily be misunderstood on both ends. Both a communicator can not understand what they are meaning, or a communicator can understand what they are meaning and not utilize proper wording to convey their meaning. This goes for the receiver also, in that a receiver may not understand what the communicator is meaning, or the receiver can misunderstand what the communicator is meaning and not have good knowledge of the proper wording that the communicator used. In all instances, errors can occur as well. Misreading something that isn’t really there is fairly common. Mistyping something is also fairly common.
With my understanding of language and meaning - it is very difficult to say I know or believe what a communicator is stating to me. I would never " believe, or believe I understand" what the meaning of someone’s communication is, in the sense that I think what the meaning being conveyed and interpreted by myself is true, because I know better - in so much that things are usually often lost in translation, error, improper understandings… because the meaning is something that is solely in possession of the communicator. I don’t accept that I think the words I read are perceived correctly, communicated effectively, in so much as to hold an interpretation of meaning as “true”, as would be the case in belief. I would claim to know how I interpreted the communication that I received however, that is very straight forward knowledge there. On the communicating end, I would never claim to know that I communicated this effectively so that the receiver had to understand me, or had no choice but to understand what I meant. I am a man full of doubt and wary of misunderstandings with communication. I don’t even know or believe that you will understand this. I may have misunderstood what you meant again. I have no belief on the matter. I can only hope we are communicating in a way that conveys meaning from me to you, and you to me, in a reasonable way that causes us to have effective communication en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communica … munication
Yes, you had an incorrect belief about cogency. Because you have beliefs, just like everybody else. It wasn’t knowledge, because you had no justification. You didn’t have no opinion about the meaning of my words, or else you wouldn’t have been wrong, and you just admitted you were. You thought I meant X when I said cogency, and in fact I meant Y. Your thinking that I meant X was a belief you had- as defined by you and by everybody else that uses the term. And that’s all there is to say about your epistemology.
I do understand. I understand that you will say absolutely anything you have to to avoid admitting you have beliefs. But that doesn’t change anything. By admitting that you were wrong, you’ve admitted that you had a belief, QED.
My turtle doesn’t have beliefs about the meaning of what I say to him, so therefore he’s not wrong- he’s too stupid to be wrong because he can’t form beliefs about things like that. But you can, and you do. That’s how you end up wrong sometimes- is by forming incorrect beliefs.
I had an incorrect interpretation about your meaning of cogency. But that can go for anything everything. Nothing I interpret from you or anyone else is conclusive, as you stated in the other thread, or believed to be truly understood as to your meaning.
“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell
An intepretation is literally ‘what you believe a person means by what they said’. That thing that you deny that you do. Yes, I agree. You thought/believed I meant one thing, when I meant another thing. This is a belief that you had.
Right. When you bitched to Carleas about how I was calling you a bigot and misinterpreting your arguments, you weren’t making a claim to understand what I meant by anything I said. When you argued with me and Omar about the Christian position on guns ownership, the paragraphs you wrote citing Bible verses that you believed (lol) to be relevant to the issue, interpreting them, and explaining to us what the ramifications are shouldn’t be taken to mean that you have any position on what the Bible means by any of the words included.
When you’ve cited dictionary definitions to people for the past week about what words mean and how they’re using them wrong, we shouldn’t take you to mean that you have a position on what those definitions actually mean, or why they’re relevant to the conversation.
When you started a thread claiming that knowledge isn’t a type of belief, and argued with people about semantics and philosophical nuance for a week straight, you did it without having any notion of what anybody meant by the words they said.
Fucking absurd.
Anyway, I’m content that I’ve shown just how rationally defunct your position is; nobody expects that you’ll ever admit it. If you don’t like something that I’ve said here, I encourage you to pretend that I agreed with you, since you have no position on what any of this means anyway.
“interpretation: the act or result of explaining or interpreting something : the way something is explained or understood” Note “Understand” is the key difference here, not belief, and understand in how I understand language is: to accept as a fact or truth or regard as plausible without utter certainty" This means I regard my interpretations as plausible, but open with the possibility of doubt - not belief as you asserted with your own definition. I don’t know or believe your meaning, Uccisore. I don’t believe I have grasped your meaning. I only know my interpretation.
[
So to understand communication properly you must understand how we function psychologically. That is usually amiss in any conversation. I certainly don’t fully grasp your state of mind. I have suspicions, but can’t say I have any beliefs about your state of mind. I don’t have a certainty. But nonetheless, communication in a philosophy forum usually needs to be presented confident enough to be able to exude coherency of what words are here and read, what they mean, what they usually mean. But its very difficult to know what words might mean. I already provided reasons why that is or how meaning is in the possession of the one communicating words. Communicating words is an imperfect way to communicate meaning - so I take my skeptic frame of thought, my stream of consciousness leaves things open, I don’t conclusively have in possession a belief or knowledge of meaning of anyone I read here. I only hope I do and act on “good faith”. Now keep in mind faith here doesn’t mean belief is means to be fair and open dealing in human interactions. But that is as much good faith as much interpretation as it is your communication. So if I was wrong, which I could be - I would request reason and explanation how. You failed to do that in the thread about other people calling me a bigot. You just made the claim for example. Apparently you believe other people called me a bigot. But I don’t know if that’s what you mean, actually. I have no belief on the matter. I find you to be a lost individual hopefully seeking out something better. You don’t seem very happy as a person. You seem like you need to transcend from wherever it is you are. Maybe not though. Maybe you just like trolling me. Or maybe you don’t. It doesn’t really matter to what my purpose is here. So go ahead and believe you reduced my argument to reducto absurdum. I have already explained my reasoning - if you don’t have anything else to say and you’re not going to accept it, that’s fine. I don’t care to repeat myself to someone who is having a hard time grasping all my key philosophical points.
But that’s fine, some people are just incompatible philosophy. If you are an “Objectivist”, or “objectivist” - as others may have accused you of, well that would explain why. As such, we’re not going to agree on much. I think people who think like you tend to take things, belief and objectivity on a superficial level and are happy with it, because it works for them on that superficial level. As such, it seems you are emotionally invested in it, and get angry when the opposite comes along. Carry on your “Whale and wasp…”
Now belief as I am referring to in this manner is:
2: to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something
Firm conviction is too strong, for our I effectively communicate. It is too strong for operating in “good faith”. I hope that clears it up for you.
More on acting on good faith, by not utilizing belief:
" I agree to proceed in “Good Faith.” Good faith means to abide by the rules of common courtesy, to keep an open mind, be willing to explore options without holding a fixed position"
whatcomcollaborativelaw.com/wp-c … h-2010.pdf
“Good, honest intentions, even if producing unfortunate results.”
He made a mistake, but acted in good faith.
yourdictionary.com/good-fait … jGZFDRb.99
So in understanding there are usually “unfortunate results” in the communication process, it would be reasonable to not believe the meaning of interlocutors; it would be reasonable to know the “words” and what the “definitions” are of the words stated, but meaning is only attempted to be conveyed through these symbols that we know as words. It is far from fool proof… however, believing otherwise is not fool proof.
Exactly, that is what WW III Angry usually does.
Yes. WW III Angry is the one who has a very vage theory. So we are allowed to expect him to give evidence or a justification of his very vage theory, if it is possible, but he does not or merely in a very vage way again. That does not surprise me. But moreover, instead of evidence or a justification he mostly gives accusations (for example: “you haven’t …” [see also above] … and so on) or moral imperatives (for example: “you should …”, “you should not …”, “you need …” [see also above], “you have to …”, “you must …”, “don’t say …” [see also above] … and so on). That is so ridiculous.
Why are you so cucksure? Try to be full of doubt.