You have no idea what knowledge is

[ladyjane]

When you say you know something you in fact have no idea what you are talking about again supporting colin leslie deans views that all ends in meaninglessness

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know

There is however no single agreed definition of knowledge presently, nor any prospect of one, and there remain numerous competing theories.

The definition of knowledge is a matter of on-going debate among philosophers in the field of epistemology. The classical definition, described but not ultimately endorsed by Plato[1], has it that in order for there to be knowledge at least three criteria must be fulfilled; that in order to count as knowledge, a statement must be justified, true, and believed. Some claim that these conditions are not sufficient, as Gettier case examples allegedly demonstrate. There are a number of alternatives proposed, including Robert Nozick’s arguments for a requirement that knowledge ‘tracks the truth’ and Simon Blackburn’s additional requirement that we do not want to say that those who meet any of these conditions ‘through a defect, flaw, or failure’ have knowledge. Richard Kirkham suggests that our definition of knowledge requires that the believer’s evidence is such that it logically necessitates the truth of the belief.[citation needed]

In contrast to this approach, Wittgenstein observed, following Moore’s paradox, that one can say “He believes it, but it isn’t so”, but not “He knows it, but it isn’t so”. [2] He goes on to argue that these do not correspond to distinct mental states, but rather to distinct ways of talking about conviction. What is different here is not the mental state of the speaker, but the activity in which they are engaged. For example, on this account, to know that the kettle is boiling is not to be in a particular state of mind, but to perform a particular task with the statement that the kettle is boiling. Wittgenstein sought to bypass the difficulty of definition by looking to the way “knowledge” is used in natural languages. He saw knowledge as a case of a family resemblance.

*
      o The doctrine of the uniformity of nature
      o The plurality of causes

Their final conclusion was, “Scientific method we declare as the most assured technique man has yet devised for controlling the flux of things and establishing stable beliefs.”

In an essay entitled “Inductive Method and Scientific Discovery,” Marcello Pera said, “In the first place, the scientific method is a procedure, a general strategy that indicates an ordered sequence of moves (or steps) which the scientist has to make (or go through) in order to reach the goal of his research.” (In On Scientific Discovery, edited by Grmek, Cohen, and Cimino [1977], published in the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science Series.) The scientific method is not a method directly applied, but rather a guide to the mental activity stages of originating, refining, extending, contextuallizing, demanding and applying knowledge. It is subject neutral and flexible in use; it is thus suitable for all domains.

Statements about truth must be viewed skeptically. Rather than state something as “true,” the following phrase should be used: “On the evidence available today the balance of probability favors the view that…” .[3]

The literature contains hundreds of formulas for the scientific method. They are basically the same but differ in length and terminology. In an article “Suggestions for Teaching the Scientific Method” published in the March 1961 issue of American Biology Teacher, Dr. Kenneth B.M. Crooks suggested this one:

1. Curiosity
2. Is there a problem?
3. Get the evidence
4. Attributes needed
5. Weigh all evidence
6. Check for bias
7. Make the educated guess (hypothesis)
8. Challenge the hypothesis
9. Get a conclusion
10. make logical inquiries
11. Suspend judgment
12. Deductive reasoning

[Jayson]

When you say you know something you in fact have no idea what you are talking about again supporting colin leslie deans views that all ends in meaninglessness

There is no point in talking if we cannot assume the right to knowledge.

Therefore, if your stance is true, then you should not voice your statement or any statement. In fact, you should never type or pen/pencil a sentence, nor should you ever talk.

[ladyjane]

you said it

There is no point in talking if we cannot assume the right to knowledge

spot on as you dont know what you are talking about when you say you know

There is however no single agreed definition of knowledge presently, nor any prospect of one, and there remain numerous competing theories.

[Unreasonable]

I have absolute knowledge of what knowledge is and I’m not going to tell you Colin Leslie Dean.

[ladyjane]

I have absolute knowledge of what knowledge is and I’m not going to tell you Colin Leslie Dean.

you dont know what you know as you dont know what know is
hahaha

[thezeus18]

I know you know but what am I?

[Kriswest]

This is just a repeat of the truth thread, same thing and you have my same reply. Get off the stuck record and move on.

[Rhinoboy]

How can you possibly “know” that we dont know what knowlege is.

[RedvsBlue]

Knowledge as in the conscious awareness of the mind or the entirety of the human body? if it’s the latter then i would have to contest your claim.

[Jayson]

@Rhinoboy

How can you possibly “know” that we dont know what knowlege is.

K(p /\ -Kp)

Aparantly he is capable of accomplishing the impossible: To know an unknown while knowing that he doesn’t know the unknown.

Funny that his biff is with the concept of “know” and that he directly wishes to pick this part of the equation and, like you point out, performs the exact function of the invalid function in the formula himself.

Nice. Oh sweet irony.

[tentative]

At what point does saying “all is meaningless” become meaningless in itself? I haven’t read Mr. Dean, but if that is the best he can come up with, he can’t even follow his own line of thought. If all is meaningless then only silence is possible. The fact that he would try to say such a dumb thing is to assign meaning which he says is impossible? The whole idea is… meaningless.

[thezeus18]

Maybe he means “Everything is meaningless except for this sentence”. But then he’s just cheating off of Socrates.

[Jayson]

@tentative

At what point does saying “all is meaningless” become meaningless in itself? I haven’t read Mr. Dean, but if that is the best he can come up with, he can’t even follow his own line of thought. If all is meaningless then only silence is possible. The fact that he would try to say such a dumb thing is to assign meaning which he says is impossible? The whole idea is… meaningless.

Well, if this is any kind of answer:
From: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=165994&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

@TheStumps

Further, you are a disciple of Mr. Leslie, but you fail him horribly as you do not produce any evidence of his work

@ladyjane

you can download his works free from here
gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/ga … alogue.htm

@TheStumps

What I mean is that when you argue or take a position, you do not use his work in your position.

@ladyjane

but i do
ie every product of human thought ends in meaninglessness

(I underlined and bold-cased the last line to show the point made clearly out of all of the discussion)

So there you have it. At the VERY least, lj thinks this, and by the way, that link doesn’t work to anyone that’s curious.

[more_or_less]

@ladyjane

When you say you know something you in fact have no idea what you are talking about again supporting colin leslie deans views that all ends in meaninglessness

Well that’s easy, as Colin has no idea what he’s talking about.