What is "knowledge" or "to know" mean

We all think we know things and have knowledge of things
but

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge

So what is knowledge
or what does it mean to know something

Well what’s your opinion on the subject?

I find it quite strange that someone who claims that there is nobody who can define knowledge as such would take such a negative and objectionable approach. Wouldn’t the more productive strategy be to say that knowledge can mean whatever you choose it to mean?

I’m sorry…one thing real quick here.

I find it incredibly amusing that a fellow that rejects the concept of known knowledge is citing WIKIPEDIA as the definition and call to hire power that knowledge is an unknown definition.

This is ironic because WIKIPEDIA is compiled BY people and THEIR knowledge, and you didn’t even get to debate them on THEIR “KNOWLEDGE” of what they claim to “KNOW” like you are always demanding of us.

Funny.

I think the Justified-true-belief account that was alluded to in the first post has it pretty close, even though there are some minor problems to sort out with it. THe most important part of this theory is the “justified” part, because of course you believe it if you claim to know it; and whether it’s true or not is sort of beyond our powers. The best thing we can do, when it comes to knowledge, is to have good reasons and evidence and arguments (i.e. good justification) for our beliefs. Some things we have lock-down arguments for (that I exist), some good arguments (that gravity exists, or evolution is the way it happened), and some weak arguments (take your pick). Anyway, the JTB account is on the right track; but it needs some clarification to get around things like Gettier cases.

It might do well to point out some other theories of knowledge. Generally they are categorized as “internalist” and “externalist” theories of knowledge. The JTB one above is a good example of internalist because knowledge depends on justification, and justification depends on the person having good reasons. Quinne supports an externalist theory of knowledge that goes something like this: a belief statement can be called “knowledge” if and only if it was produced by a process that is statistically shown to be “truth-producing.” Think of a process like eye-sight, for example. If it has proven to produce truth-statements in the past, and if I am using that process right now to produce my belief (even though I might not know that I am!), then it is knowledge. Anyway, you can see how this makes knowledge external to the person, because it depends on the functionality and reliability of a process that happens either in the world or in my body that I’m not in control of.

I’m in complete dissagreement with a theory like Quinne’s, or any other externalist theory. It seems to miss the point and beg the question. What do you guys think?

This is not, strictly speaking, the case, given that Wikipedia has a discussion page for each of its articles. However, be assured I am still with you on the general gist of your view of ladyjane.

Justified-true-belief is bullshit.

A gun makes a quicker point.

killing a problem isn’t the same as solving it, you know that.

If 2 people had an argument, and one person killed the other out of frustration fro his loss, that doesn’t mean he was right, just that he’s a murderer.

Sure it does.

silencing the messenger doesn’t silence the logic.

if you’re looking to be reasonable you should try and grasp that.

No, it doesn’t prove one side or the other, but in some cases it sure would be allot more satisfying.

Truthfully however, any serious logician should be striving to look at dilemma’s objectively while fully being capable of evaluating the subject subjectively on the side as a means of evaluation from a first hand point of view.

But yes…most strive to prove instead of find.

By the way:

What does that mean from you?

It’s a little easy to interpret it in quite a few ways.

That doesn’t mean anything from me. Other people use it around here, namely Xunzian, and I see it as a catch-phrase. – conceptually devoide of meaning.

It depends on what the “logic” is.

If the messenger is speaking on behalf of another, then does he not still own the words? I say that he does, partially.

The man with the gun may kill him and whoever the messenger is speaking through by association. He’d be right.

I know exactly what you mean. :banana-dance: