Blah blah blah…forget this post…already on topic.
There’s a current thread on the board that deals largely with just this topic →
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=164198
Many of us (well, some of us anyway) believe that the justified true belief (jtb) theory for knowledge is a necessary starting point, even if it is not always sufficient by itself, to have ‘knowledge-that’ (i.e., propositional knowledge).
Thanks Reality Check…my bad.
Evidence and specific knowledge in plenty areas of science help reflect what is ‘real’ there for, to have information to ‘know’ about those ‘real’ things, can be largely achieved through unbiased scientific research.
At least, unbiased scientific research is the only engine, ever, which has produced a increasingly accurate picture of reality and the world we live. Philosophical nay-sayers can scream all they like, 1 year of good science, increases our knowledge of the universe, biology, our lives, more than a thousand years of poor, shitty philosophy. (not that all of it was poor and shitty, just a lot was)
Cyrene you’re on my ignore list so I only see your name, if you want to apologize for being
rude I will remove the ignore and treat you as I treat and respect everyone else.
Ad Ad Hominem
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=162854
Evidence and specific knowledge in plenty areas of science help reflect what is ‘real’ there for, to have information to ‘know’ about those ‘real’ things, can be largely achieved through unbiased scientific research.
At least, unbiased scientific research is the only engine, ever, which has produced a increasingly accurate picture of reality and the world we live. Philosophical nay-sayers can scream all they like, 1 year of good science, increases our knowledge of the universe, biology, our lives, more than a thousand years of poor, shitty philosophy. (not that all of it was poor and shitty, just a lot was)
increases knowledge? compounding the inductive error is all science does…
-Imp
I have to agree science has firmed up a lot of loose ends with their tools right down to the unified field idea which i know as ‘subjective reality’.
The only thing science can’t measure is the consciousness or 'awareness of self" present in the unified field that defies cause and effect. But the quantum dimension is so strange (pun intended) that some discoveries are blowing the hominid objective circuitry.
Knowledge, as understood by you, strikes me awfully theistic. As a sacred thing only to be had by the almighty.
god remains dead.
as does knowledge…
-Imp
For a skeptic you seem awfully sure of yourself.
awfully sure of what? momentary flux?
viewtopic.php?t=142468&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
viewtopic.php?t=142690&start=0
-Imp
I’d see no problem if you only dismissed the claims of knowledge you’ve experienced because you don’t see them as being up to par. But that’s not what you’re saying. Your argument makes a general statement about knowledge, the flux, etc where such a statement can be dismissed by the very argument with which you dismiss the propositions contending knowledge. You in effect silence yourself, or otherwise allow yourself to only say “not good enough” where a proposition contends knowledge.
but that is all I ever do say…
-Imp
I think knowing something just means that you feel in your heart that it’s true. Follow your hearts guys!