Is knowledge also a belief?

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby surreptitious57 » Sat Mar 12, 2016 11:17 pm

Language can some times be ambiguous and particularly so with such a loaded word like belief that obviously means different things
to different people. This is why in debates like this it is absolutely imperative for everyone to define as clearly as possible their own
interpretation of the word. But equally as important also to accept any alternative definitions of it and realise they are just as valid
as their own definition. And so without both of these conditions being rigorously adhered to productive discourse is just not possible
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Sat Mar 12, 2016 11:23 pm

Uccisore wrote:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
As is defined in epistemic framework that seems to be taken for granted since Plato.


It only seems that way because you're ignorant of epistemology. Nothing has been 'taken for granted since Plato'; it has been examined and re-examined from every possible angle the human mind can examine it. Gettier would be an obvious example, since we've been talking about him this whole time.

You did already state that "we've known since Gettier at least that Knowledge is not justified true belief" and that an additional jump is needed, however, why not just throw away the whole idea?


Because 'throwing away' whole ideas isn't something we do without some sort of fucking argument, and you have not provided one in any way, shape or form. This is very straightforward- according to how 'belief' is defined in epistemology, knowledge is a type of belief. If you want to make up a new definition of 'belief' such that it formally excludes knowledge, you are free to do so, but you haven't actually introduced anything new to philosophical thought, you've merely played a word game- a word game that you will have to re-play every time you have a philosophical conversation with a new person who is confused as to why you aren't using words the same way as everybody else.


Centuries of academic philosophy elitism building on itself, JTB being proven wrong and academic philosophy elitists seem to want to rationalize it anyway.


You apparently live in a fantasy land in which you make up stories about what philosophers are doing and thinking, in lieu of you having actually studied what they are thinking and doing. Be straight with me- do you actually have the foggiest fucking idea what modern epistemologists are saying about anything, to justify the above accusation? You just postulated academic elitists defending JTB in spite of (I assume you mean) Gettier 'proving it wrong'. Give me some examples. Who are the academic philosophy elitists that are ignoring Gettier to defend simple JTB? You can't mean me, since the only reason you've even heard of Gettier is because I told you about him.


I guess it would be a shame to throw out the concurrence of the likes of Hume on the matter, but Hume didn't really focus on this so much. Not many have strictly focused on this matter, that I'm aware of.


Because you aren't aware of epistemology in general, right? Plantinga, Chisholm, Russell, I think Ernest Sosa, John Greco, L. Zagzebski...Gettier's work has been very influential in epistemology, and tons of people have addressed it. Pre-Gettier, the justification of belief was a primary concern of Hume, sure, but also DesCartes, Locke, Reid, Berkeley and of course Kant.



I agree, my point is that the common philosophical definition is based on that continued usage of knowledge and belief that rooted in Plato and not much else. Why?


Because it presents an accurate representation of the way people think.

So why can't we have a different framework? Can we not? Any logical reason why the current framework must be?


So that''s your angle? "Let's re-define a bunch of words in ways that will confuse everybody, when the old definitions were perfectly fine, because why not?" Feel free! Use common philosophical vernacular in a way that will guarentee nobody understands what the hell you're talking about without you constantly re-explaining your basic terminology.

Are you appealing to argumentum ad populum here?


No more or less than you making up stories about what the 'academic elites' are doing so you can paint yourself as heroic in your defiance of them. But yes, when numerous un-associated people tell you that you're fundamentally wrong about a subject that, let's face it, you really don't know much about, it's time to listen to them.


"Belief" means something in philosophy due to what reason? Tell me why it means that and why it has to remain that?


Because the phenomenon X of 'a person thinking a proposition is true or false' is a ubiquitous subject of philosphy, and so there's bound to be a word to describe it. If you try to chop that concept up, and force there to be *one* word for some of these occurances and *another* word for others of these occurances, the response will just be to force another word to come up to describe them both as a collective- since that's inevitably how they will be discussed most of the time.

So, if you manage to convince people to change their vocabulary so that some instances of X as 'beliefs' and some instances of X as 'knowledge' and badger them into denying that one is a subset of the other, they will eventually come up with some new term- like SuperBelief- to describe all instances of X. So you'll have a situation where Belief and Knowledge are considered completely different (because you won this preposterous non-debate), and yet both fall under the category of "Superbeliefs". The epistemology will not be changed in the slightest- Superbelief will just mean what 'belief' used to, Belief will mean what 'unjustified belief" used to, and "Knowledge" will mean basically the same thing as it did before, unless youv'e got some violence in mind for that vocabulary that we haven't talked about yet.

The reason for this self-regulation of the language into a situation in which you changed essentially nothing but people's vocabulary is that these terms all seek to describe a reality impervious to your desire for a 'different framework'. Similarly, if you decided that tigers are no longer cats, and were able to impose your will on the language, a new word would simply come up to refer to 'tigers and cats', since despite your desires, they really are quite similar and bound to be referred to collectively often enough to need a word for it.



Why can we not provide a better definition that includes all aspects of what belief and knowledge entail, and not base it on some oversimplification that knowledge is thinking something is true and so is belief therefore knowledge is belief.


Because 'we' haven't actually studied epistemology, and don't 'we' actually know what 'we' are talking about sufficiently to provide a better definition that will suit the purposes of the people who actually use these words- namely, that of describing reality.

Both belief and knowledge are much more than thinking something is true and epistemology realizes that, so what benefit is it that this categorization persist?


No, belief is not much more than thinking something is true (or false, don't forget that). It literally is that and nothing more. Knowledge is that, plus some additional criteria.

I would agree that it would be very difficult to understand something such as this in a new light - but an attempt can be made and in turn can be understood.


Yes, an attempt can be made to understand why this one guy on the internet wants to use 'belief' and 'knowledge' in bizarre, non-standard ways. I have made that attempt, and my conclusion is that it's occuring due a combination of political (pro-skeptic) motiviations and a lack of understanding of actual epistemology.

Truth must be a category of belief as well because they share certainty.


Like take this for example. It's patent nonsense. Anybody with a basic understanding of epistemology would roll their eyes or laugh at this. Truth is a relationship between a proposition and a state of affairs. It's obviously not a belief, and has nothing to do with certainty.

because acceptance of something as true in belief and acceptance of something as true in knowledge is different.


Yes, they are different. But they both fall into the category of 'thinking a proposition is true', and the word we use for that category is 'belief'. Again, if you switch the vocabulary around, there will simply be a different word for this same categorization, and nothing in philosophy will change, except that certain concepts will be harder to express.

I have reason.


Not any that you've demonstrated here. You've basically raged against 'the establishment' and demanded me to tell you why you can't have your way.



I would say not every other epistemologist on earth. Perhaps those in bed with elitist academia,


And you have the gall to accuse somebody else of argumentum ad populum. Your every post is rife with this heroic portrayl of yourself as rising against the 'elitists' with your nonsense.

So depending on the justification and reason, I contest that a theory of how beliefs can never be justified can be laid out.


Of course it can, if you sufficiently twist the terms 'belief' and 'justified' into something that bares no resemblance to how the rest of the world uses them. I can lay out a theory of how beliefs can eat sheep and howl at the moon if all the relevant terms are mine to define. But neither your word game nor mine will change the fact that

'the reasons we have for thinking a proposition are true or false can be good reasons or bad reasons'.

This is presently referred to as a belief being justified or unjustified. You would presumably use a different sentence to describe that exact same state of affairs. It changes nothing.



Yes its recognized but I contest it isn't recognized in as concise a manner as I propose philosophically.


And I contest that you haven't the foggiest fucking idea how the majority of epistemologists regard this distinction and that the above is just a fantasy story. Honestly, I think that's where your position falls apart- you're telling me all these stories about what the field of epistemology does and doesn't do, what the 'elitists' belief and what they don't, and I...simply don't believe you. I'm not prepared to accept that you have ready really much of any epistemology at all, certainly not enough to be making pronouncements on the state of the field.


Belief isn't needed for knowledge as I already explained


That is entirely possible given however you define 'belief' and knowledge'. You may as well say 'woof woof isn't needed for meow' for all the difference it makes to me. What's important is that knowledge is a specialized instance of thinking a proposition is true or false. I haven't seen you disagree with that so much as insist that it's terribly important that we use different words to describe it.

why and contested based on the proposition of belief being unjustified and knowledge being justifiable.


Right, those are the definitions you made up. Within your near-English language that you speak when dealing with epistemology, the sentence "belief isn't needed for knowledge" is true. Within some other guys near-English language, the sentence "Knowledge eats carrots and leaves me painted eggs every Easter" is true. You aren't challenging any underlying concepts, you're simply insisting that people should prefer your near-English language to English.



No, doubting is not a belief, it is a state of uncertainty. I make no claim that x is likely or unlikely when I doubt.


A belief isn't an uttered claim, it's a state of mind with regards to a proposition. Thinking proposition X is true, false, likely, unlikely, or of unknowable probability are all beliefs. This is easily demonstratable since any of these an be re-written in the affirmative, i.e.,

"The likelihood of X is undiscernable" or "X is false" or "I don't have sufficient information to draw a conclusion about X" are all propositions that a person can think are true, and so thinking is thus a belief.

In other words, if you doubt X, then you think 'X is unlikely' or 'there isn't enough evidence to conclude anything about x' or something similar to that is true. That would be the belief that you have. If what you meant to say is that you have no opinion at all about X (for example, you've never heard of X or have only heard of it in passing), then that may be a different story, but that's not how other human beings use the word 'doubt'. For all I know. 'doubt' is another of those terms you've made up your own definition for though, so who knows what you actually mean.

Where in epistemology does anyone even think such a thing? I would like to know.


That any proposition about probability can be converted to a simple positive or negative statement as I showed above isn't a matter of epistemology so much as a matter of setential logic.



But your response here is mostly noise, lets get to reason and logic yes? Not noise...


I find it highly likely that you'll just not reply to the logic and reason I give you, as you have in the past.




Ok you're not providing me a logical negation of why it isn't the way I think, you've made an assertion about Gettier that I didn't disagree with, but you haven't ruled out my assertion with reason... Both my assertion and yours are compatible as I understand it, until you explain why. My understanding is based on a synopsis of the Gettier problem here -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem


Yeah, stop arguing with me about Gettier based on a wikipedia article that you skimmed. His actual paper is easily available. Gettier's conclusion was that JTB are required for knowledge, but something else is required in addition.

Yes, and thinking something is true isn't the trait of knowledge that I am stating exists in the state of knowledge, it is more.


Yes, knowledge is more than merely thinking something is true. But that is a part of it, and anything that is minimally 'thinking something is true' is a belief. There are all sorts of kinds of beliefs, which are very different from each other- guesses, theories, knowledge, convictions, delusions. These are all beliefs, and they are all quite different from each other, because 'belief' is a very basic concept.

I am contending that it is an oversimplification here. Knowledge is understanding something that is true,



Which makes it a belief. Whatever else may be required for something to be knowledge, the above makes it a belief. You've just admitted that modern philosophy is correct about this, according to you. You can change the definition of 'belief' all you want such that the sentence "Knowledge is not a belief" is true when you (and only you) utter it, but that will not change the fact that knowledge is a type of belief as those terms are commonly defined, which means the answer to the question posed in your OP is 'yes'.

If I asked "Are dogs a type of cat?" as a thread in the science forum, everybody would say 'of course not'. If I revealed that by 'cat' I meant 'for-legged mammal', it wouldn't change their answer, and it certainly wouldn't change anything about the actual nature of cats and dogs. It would just mean that 1.) I asked a trick question, and 2.) I have a funny way of talking.



Uccisore if its been examined I would say it hasn't been examined thoroughly enough. We already had this discussion and as I see it has only been touched on lightly, or in very myopic fields such as how to understand certain things, not everything. You say I haven't provided an argument, but then what are you arguing against? Nothing? Apparently you're not making sense then. I've mentioned my argument many times and you're again repeating "according to how 'belief' is defined in epistemology", which I already argued is not the right way to define it and provided reasons why it isn't the right way to define it. You don't argue against the reasons though - you agree, it seems. But still say well epistemology defines it this way, so it must be that way, essentially. If you understand how philosophy works you would know philosophy has in the past brought new paradigm shifts in understanding. You are not able to provide a coherent argument why a paradigm shift is impossible in epistemology, and even my argument which apparently isn't an argument, but something else you wish to rationalize it as.

Your emotional response though is beginning to become telling, you claim things that you couldn't possibly know, like I never heard of Gettier before you mentioned him here. My argument doesn't rest on Gettier - but a further more comprehensive thesis would. I already referenced Gettier before you even replied on this thread. It's even in my OP in Reddit. In any case your response is indicative of your unreasonable nature on this matter. Since maybe the first time we ever engaged each other on the boards (I don't remember anything else - ) I don't know what your nature is however. But so far, not very confident in your argument by stating "Fucking" and showing anger instead of showing reason and making wild claims that I know are false. You also aren't rebutting against specific claims and merely assuming I don't know what I'm talking about. In any case, it seems based on all that I have already received my constructive criticism from you and have no need for your deconstructive criticism because its not logic or reasonable, its merely insulting and unreasonable. But I am not offended anyways, I'm sure there's good reason why you're responding emotionally, I did provide some cutting remarks on your lack of argument already that probably angered you more than anything else. As mentioned already in this thread: " More the knowledge lesser the ego, lesser the knowledge more the ego.” But your responding seems indicative of ego and not reason. So I take it you really don't understand how to argue against what I stated, but you want to very badly. As you already alluded to me wanting this very badly, but that seems to be a projection. I don't. I just want to know. Right now I am at a state of ultimate uncertainty and am looking for ways to negate this sentiment of mine or continue further. Currently I need to continue further based on everything that was presented to me by you and others - particularly others on reddit.


You stated also "
And I contest that you haven't the foggiest fucking idea how the majority of epistemologists regard this distinction and that the above is just a fantasy story. Honestly, I think that's where your position falls apart- you're telling me all these stories about what the field of epistemology does and doesn't do, what the 'elitists' belief and what they don't, and I...simply don't believe you. I'm not prepared to accept that you have ready really much of any epistemology at all, certainly not enough to be making pronouncements on the state of the field. "

Here you go, seemingly again making a wild claim about what I know out of emotionalism. Click the link.

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/p/pod/dod ... 4.0011.008

You claim epistemology shows how knowledge and belief are reprentative the way people think, without any reason to show how thats the way they think. In any case, Gettier shows it isn't how people think and now you want to continue rationalizing that the general theory still stands. But offer no reason how other than the epistemological definition and not any insight on knowledge and belief.

I certainly am not raging against anything, I am seeking more clarification, answers and reason why. I have been directed to seek more answers and counter more arguments against my stance. That is all I have been shown in my post so far, which is pretty much what I wanted. If you don't have anything more to offer you can stop responding or misrepresenting my stance. You don't really seem to fully understand what I am saying anyway, and part of that could be my fault but part of it could be your fault as well. In any case, other people have understood what my intentions are and have guided me well, and so have the naysayers in their way :)

I am not attempting to use different words to describe it, I am attempting to describe it more coherently and clearly because I don't think the mind thinks at its deepest levels that knowledge and belief are the same, in ones mind. If they do, then they are wrong. Most people are wrong about beliefs anyway, because its never logical to believe. Its always best to know you don't know. So people need to be taught how to think the right way, essentially and how to discern their beliefs from their knowledge, because epistemology isn't doing them any justice in this manner currently, by conflating belief and knowledge in one sense of belief and knowledge that doesn't really have any basis in the mind - as we treat them differently- and as such the reality of the situation.
Last edited by WW_III_ANGRY on Sun Mar 13, 2016 3:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3510
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Sat Mar 12, 2016 11:26 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:Language can some times be ambiguous and particularly so with such a loaded word like belief that obviously means different things
to different people. This is why in debates like this it is absolutely imperative for everyone to define as clearly as possible their own
interpretation of the word. But equally as important also to accept any alternative definitions of it and realise they are just as valid
as their own definition. And so without both of these conditions being rigorously adhered to productive discourse is just not possible


Yes I agree -that's why I pointed out my definitions early on. Uccisore is only attempting to think that the epistemic sense is the only one worth fighting for, because ....? Its accepted in academia? Whatever :)
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3510
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Sat Mar 12, 2016 11:27 pm

Uccisore wrote:For those who don't want to read all that, a summary of what's going on in this thread:

New atheists and internet skeptics use 'belief' in a certain way.

Epistemologists use 'belief' in another way.

Because of that difference, a statement like "I don't have any beliefs" is understandable and admirable to the internet-skeptic, but self-refuting balderdash to the epistemologist.

This is fine as long as the two groups keep to themselves.

What's going on here is an attempt to replace the epistemological definition with the internet-skeptic version.

This is bad, because the internet-skeptic version means something like "Those unfounded and preposterous convictions held by religious people and my political enemies" which isn't nearly precise or rigorous enough to use in serious philosophy.


Please don't misrepresent my position, that is not what this is about.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3510
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby Uccisore » Sat Mar 12, 2016 11:33 pm

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:Uccisore if its been examined I would say it hasn't been examined thoroughly enough.


But we're in agreement that you don't know, right? This is just part of your fantasy story in which epistemologists that you haven't read and in all likelihood can't even name are shirking their intellectual duties because heard they don't agree with you about things.

You say I haven't provided an argument, but then what are you arguing against? Nothing?


No, I'm arguing against a series of bald assertions and bad analogies for the most part.

You are not able to provide a coherent argument why a paradigm shift is impossible in epistemology, and even my argument which apparently isn't an argument, but something else you wish to rationalize it as.


My argument for why your desired shift in vocabulary can't change epistemology is right there in my post that you quoted. That's right. You literally just quoted me saying the thing that you accuse me of not saying in the self-same post.

Let's see if you ignore it again, as I predicted.

OK, I'm deleting the 'what a terrible person Uccisore is' diatribe, looking for an actual response to any of the points I made...

Wow. There goes 80% of your post...reading on...

Yep, that's it.

You asked for a logical rebuttal to your position, I gave you one, predicted you'd ignore it and offer no reply, and that's exactly what you fucking did- and anybody reading this thread can see it.














Reposting the rebuttal that you asked for then ignored and declared I was unable to provide:

"Because the phenomenon X of 'a person thinking a proposition is true or false' is a ubiquitous subject of philosphy, and so there's bound to be a word to describe it. If you try to chop that concept up, and force there to be *one* word for some of these occurances and *another* word for others of these occurances, the response will just be to force another word to come up to describe them both as a collective- since that's inevitably how they will be discussed most of the time.

So, if you manage to convince people to change their vocabulary so that some instances of X as 'beliefs' and some instances of X as 'knowledge' and badger them into denying that one is a subset of the other, they will eventually come up with some new term- like SuperBelief- to describe all instances of X. So you'll have a situation where Belief and Knowledge are considered completely different (because you won this preposterous non-debate), and yet both fall under the category of "Superbeliefs". The epistemology will not be changed in the slightest- Superbelief will just mean what 'belief' used to, Belief will mean what 'unjustified belief" used to, and "Knowledge" will mean basically the same thing as it did before, unless youv'e got some violence in mind for that vocabulary that we haven't talked about yet.

The reason for this self-regulation of the language into a situation in which you changed essentially nothing but people's vocabulary is that these terms all seek to describe a reality impervious to your desire for a 'different framework'. Similarly, if you decided that tigers are no longer cats, and were able to impose your will on the language, a new word would simply come up to refer to 'tigers and cats', since despite your desires, they really are quite similar and bound to be referred to collectively often enough to need a word for it."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby Uccisore » Sat Mar 12, 2016 11:42 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:Language can some times be ambiguous and particularly so with such a loaded word like belief that obviously means different things
to different people. This is why in debates like this it is absolutely imperative for everyone to define as clearly as possible their own
interpretation of the word. But equally as important also to accept any alternative definitions of it and realise they are just as valid
as their own definition. And so without both of these conditions being rigorously adhered to productive discourse is just not possible


Some definitions map onto reality and some don't, though. And some definitions group states of affairs up into useful collections, and some don't. I'm free to define 'dog' as 'four-legged animal of the genus 'lupus', and also large milky-white collections of condensed water in the lower atmosphere', but grouping dogs and clouds up as the same thing doesn't help matters. Similarly, saying "Sharks aren't fish because fish don't bite people" isn't very useful compared to a scientific definition of fish.

So yes, you're right to a point, but there are constraints on what makes a definition good or bad if we imagine that we're actually talking about the world, and not babbling. That's basically what's happening here- WW III seems to think that philosophy is essentially babbling (making word-sounds that don't have any connection to reality) and so if he decides words mean something completely different than they did yesterday, there's no objective reason not to use his definitions. The problem of course is that in philosophy as in anything, certain groupings of concepts are going to come up again and again thanks to reality, and so the same words for the same things will be needed: the subjects of philosophy have a natural resistance to arbitrary grouping, in other words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Sat Mar 12, 2016 11:43 pm

Uccisore wrote:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:Uccisore if its been examined I would say it hasn't been examined thoroughly enough.


But we're in agreement that you don't know, right? This is just part of your fantasy story in which epistemologists that you haven't read and in all likelihood can't even name are shirking their intellectual duties because they don't agree with you about things.

You say I haven't provided an argument, but then what are you arguing against? Nothing?


No, I'm arguing against a series of bald assertions and bad analogies for the most part.

You are not able to provide a coherent argument why a paradigm shift is impossible in epistemology, and even my argument which apparently isn't an argument, but something else you wish to rationalize it as.


My argument for why your desired shift in vocabulary is right there in my post that you quoted. Let's see if you ignore it again, as I predicted.

OK, I'm deleting the 'what a terrible person Uccisore is' diatribe, looking for an actual response to any of the points I made...

Wow. There goes 80% of your post...reading on...

Yep, that's it.

You asked for a logical rebuttal to your position, I gave you one, predicted you'd ignore it and offer no reply, and that's exactly what you fucking did- and anybody reading this thread can see it.


Well appeal to authority then, go ahead, you know you want to. Its running through your blood, bubbling out in "Fuck you" fashion :)

Here,

I'm arguing against your bald assertions Uccisore, and your bad analogies. You gave a logical rebuttal in your mind which was actually an appeal to authority. Your rebuttal didn't address the nature of belief and knowledge, but mere word usage. Word usage is not the crux of the matter. I don't care if people say belief when they mean knowledge, or vice versa. I am talking about a specific concept that I am explaining why and how it isn't necessarily explored thoroughly enough by epistemology and needs further review.

Perhaps epistemology can change the dynamics of how the word is used. IF you tell me what I believe, I can say nothing based on how I use it and how many others do. But that depends on me just being disciplined enough to have no beliefs, again, based on how I use it. Nonetheless, there are plenty of definitions that I didn't define that agree with what I stated, because they aren't inclusive of how epistemology defines it and we don't use them inclusively. Language is dynamic, but not the meaning of the concept at heart and that meaning is amiss in epistemology and needs revision. Besides, there are some epistemologists more recently now, out there that do question knowledge as a belief in the sense acadmeia does en masse, you know. It's not all elitism and taking it for granted out there.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3510
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby Uccisore » Sat Mar 12, 2016 11:56 pm

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:Well appeal to authority then, go ahead, you know you want to. Its running through your blood, bubbling out in "Fuck you" fashion :)


Is pointing out my argument that you ignored an appeal to authority? Why are you saying this nonsense instead of replying to my points? You specifically asked for them after all.

You gave a logical rebuttal in your mind which was actually an appeal to authority. Your rebuttal didn't address the nature of belief and knowledge, but mere word usage.


Then quote me and rebut it if you think that's what I've done. Making up stories about what you wish my argument was now that we're on a fresh page and you aren't quoting it anymore doesn't get you anything. Are you playing to an imagined crowd, or actually having a conversation with me?

I am talking about a specific concept that I am explaining why and how it isn't necessarily explored thoroughly enough by epistemology and needs further review.


The problem here is that the difference between belief and knowledge has actually been explored to fucking death for centuries, so the idea that it hasn't been questioned is dubious at best. It is doubly dubious coming from somebody who needed me to explain to him what Gettier said, and has admitted that they are basing their understanding of Gettier on a Wikipedia article. You need to make your argument on something other than 'the field of epistemology is in sorry shape', because anybody who questions you is going to come to doubt that you know enough about epistemology to pass that judgment. You whine about me making a personal attack when I say things like this, but when you have the hubris to condemn the entire history of Western analytic philosophy, you invite it. People are naturally going to ask themselves "Who is this guy to declare that all of epistemology is myopic?" and when they seek to answer that question, well- you know better than I do what they're going to discover.

Perhaps epistemology can change the dynamics of how the word is used.


You just got done saying this isn't about definitions, but about concepts. Now you're saying you're pushing for epistemology to change it's definitions. It's this lack of consistency that leads to trouble.

Again, because you still haven't addressed it: the condition of "Thinking a proposition is true" is common enough and ubiquitous to philosophy that there will always be a word for it. At present, the word is 'belief'. That is why knowledge is a belief- because it is a type of 'thinking a proposition is true', and that's what belief means. If the vocabulary is switched all around such that all these concepts have different terms attached, it will remain true that "Knowledge is a special type of 'thinking a proposition is true", and thus, knowledge will be considered a subset of whatever the word for 'thinking a proposition is true' is. That is the answer to your question of why epistemology can't simply change to suit you.

There. That's my fifth fucking time making the same argument, and you've ignored it every single time.

But that depends on me just being disciplined enough to have no beliefs, again, based on how I use it.


Right, you 'have no beliefs', because you use the word 'belief' to mean something completely different than how it is used in the philosophical sense. To an epistemologist, a person claiming to have no beliefs is speaking nonsense. If you want to change how philosophy uses the word belief, then first of all good luck, and second of all see above- you'll simply change the vernacular and not what anybody thinks about anything.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Sat Mar 12, 2016 11:57 pm

Also from the SEP on knowledge:

1.2 The Belief Condition
The belief condition is slightly more controversial than the truth condition, although it is certainly accepted by orthodoxy.

Although initially it might seem obvious that knowing that p requires believing that p, some philosophers have argued that knowledge without belief is indeed possible. Suppose Walter comes home after work to find out that his house has burned down. He says: “I don't believe it.” Critics of the belief condition might argue that Walter knows that his house has burned down (he sees that it has), but, as his words indicate, he does not believe that his house has burned down. Therefore, there is knowledge without belief. The dominant view, however, is that Walter's avowal of disbelief is not, strictly speaking, literally true; what Walter wishes to convey by saying “I don't believe it” is not that he really does not believe that his house has burned down, but rather that he finds it hard to come to terms with what he sees. If he didn't genuinely believe it, some of his subsequent actions, such as phoning his insurance company, would be rather mysterious.

A more serious counterexample has been suggested by Colin Radford (1966). Suppose Albert is quizzed on English history. One of the questions is: “When did Queen Elizabeth die?” Albert doesn't think he knows, but answers the question correctly. Moreover, he gives correct answers to many other questions to which he didn't think he knew the answer. Let us focus on Albert's answer to the question about Elizabeth:

(E)
Elizabeth died in 1603.
Radford makes the following two claims about this example:

Albert does not believe (E).
Albert knows (E).
Radford's intuitions about cases like these do not seem to be idiosyncratic; Myers-Schutz & Schwitzgebel (forthcoming) find evidence suggesting that many ordinary speakers tend to react in the way Radford suggests.[3]

In support of (a), Radford emphasizes that Albert thinks he doesn't know the answer to the question. He doesn't trust his answer because he takes it to be a mere guess. In support of (b), Radford argues that Albert's answer is not at all just a lucky guess. The fact that he answers most of the questions correctly indicates that he has actually learned, and never forgotten, the basic facts of English history.

Since he takes (a) and (b) to be true, Radford would argue that knowledge without belief is indeed possible. But either of (a) and (b) might be resisted. Those who think that belief is necessary for knowledge could deny (a), arguing that Albert does have a tacit belief that (E), even though it's not one that he thinks amounts to knowledge. Alternatively, one might deny (b), arguing that Albert's correct answer is not an expression of knowledge, perhaps because, given his subjective position, he does not have justification for believing (E). This reply anticipates the next section, involving the necessity of the justification condition.

At least the SEP grants room for change non this issue, unlike you Uccisore

But no, orthodoxy says so :)
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3510
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Sun Mar 13, 2016 1:40 am

WWIII, please respond to my previous post.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Sun Mar 13, 2016 1:42 am

Also, could we not say knowledge is filled with its own ego, biases, prejudices, and assumptions?

This requires a lot of belief and believing even without a hundred percent certainty or clarification.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby Uccisore » Sun Mar 13, 2016 2:29 am

So that's what you chose to post instead of interacting with my argument? The argument you specifically asked me to provide you, I must add.

Why?


Did you notice that the SEP gives refutations of both alleged instances of knowledge without belief, or did you just paste that up there without actually reading the whole thing, in a similar manner to how you treat my posts?

Are you aware that posting examples from the SEP of epistemologists questioning the 'belief' criteria for knowledge refutes your oft made assertion that the belief criteria for knowledge hasn't been sufficiently examined by epistemologists? Why would you refute your own position like that?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby Arminius » Sun Mar 13, 2016 2:55 am

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
Arminius wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:There is information and there is knowledge. All knowledge is information. But not all information is knowledge.

That is what I said to WW_III_Angry several times, but he did not understand it.


Nonsense, I certainly understand that. He didn't make that distinction initially.

Oh, yes, I did (with other words, of course), but you did not understand it.

Do you understand your own words?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby Arminius » Sun Mar 13, 2016 3:55 am

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
Arminius wrote:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:Why isn't it true?

It is useless because without understanding nothing can be said to be of use. To ascribe a "use" for something, anything, requires understanding of what that "something, anything" is and does - and what it should do or does naturally. IF there's no conscious awareness of existence, it doesn't matter what anything does. Thus useless.

Like I said: Understanding in a very primitive sense does not mean what we understand when we use the word "understanding" in a human sense. Remember: Your thread is about belief and knowledge; and an amoeb does not need to understand what information means (you should not always confuse all living beings with human beings!), it does not need to believe or to know in order to be informed in the sense of "being in form". "Information" originally comes from "being in form" (there is no need of belief and knowledge). Do you understand that?

You asked me what the common root is. I have given you the answer several times, but you have not understood it, and that is the problem, your problem.

Stones do not beleive and not know. Primitive living beings do not beleive and not know, but they are „in form“ (they live) without believing and knowing it.

That is great insight of yours as that receiving information is being informed. Is being informed mean understanding? Well, yes it does, essentially. I don't know what you mean by primative, but any sort of knowledge is knowledge, regardless of how menial it is. Like I said, does an amoeba receiving information mean it is understanding it?

No.

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:We may not know the answer to that question but one can just say no, it isn't - because it has no mind, at least that we know of. It would be an assumption otherwise. I agree an amoeba does not need to understand what information means ....

Are you sure that you agree?

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:I never confused that with all human beings I never claimed an amoeba needs Information. It seems you're arguing against something I never stated.

That is - again - not true. I gave you an advice ("you should not always confuse all living beings with human beings!") but did not say that you stated this or that. Giving an advice does not necessarily mean that a statement was given in a text (in your case: your text in your posts) but that in could be in your thoughts. Note the subjunctive - "should", "could" - in my sentences.

I think that you are confusing all living beings with human beings in your thoughts, not necessarily in your posted statements. Do you know the distinction (difference) of your thoughts and your posted statements? I am trying to understand why you are writing so much nonsense. Now my conlusion is: Your statements or your thoughts or both your statements and your thoughts are false - but never none of them.

WW_III_ANGRY wrote: But being informed is understanding - but an amoeba may just be "reacting" not being informed.

The reverse is true. "Being informed" can but does not necessarily mean "understanding". "Being informed" and "being in form" (it is like: "to live") belong together, and this has primarily nothing to do with your interpretation of "understanding". A cell does not need to humanly understand its information.

Remember: Your thread is about belief and knowledge. A cell does not have a belief and a knowledge in the sense that you mean. The "belief" and the "knowledge" of a cell are the same: information (coming in form, being in formed, being in form) in a primitive sense which means without understanding and all other mental processes an anthropocentric human being always hastily interprets into all living beings.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby surreptitious57 » Sun Mar 13, 2016 4:22 am

Being informed is not necessarily the same as understanding although it can be. What it does is provide one with information
But it says absolutely nothing about whether or not that information can be correctly processed or interpreted. If it can then
it is understood and if it cannot then it is not understood. Now to understand something is to know it. Since as I have already
said all knowledge is information but not all information is knowledge. And so knowledge is therefore a subset of information
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby surreptitious57 » Sun Mar 13, 2016 5:06 am

A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby Uccisore » Sun Mar 13, 2016 5:38 am

surreptitious57 wrote:Being informed is not necessarily the same as understanding although it can be. What it does is provide one with information
But it says absolutely nothing about whether or not that information can be correctly processed or interpreted. If it can then
it is understood and if it cannot then it is not understood. Now to understand something is to know it. Since as I have already
said all knowledge is information but not all information is knowledge. And so knowledge is therefore a subset of information


One of the main reasons why knowledge is best understood as a type of belief, in addition to what I've already given, is that knowledge is part of a continuum: there's guesses and horrible reasoning and blind hopes on one end, and absolutely certain self-evident truths on the other, but there's also every possible grade in between. Knowledge and believe are the same type of thing because there is clearly no hard break where one stops and the other begins. Whether or not information can be correctly processed is just one of those considerations- some knowledge doesn't require much if any interpretation, some knowledge *is* an interpretation of some basic fact.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby surreptitious57 » Sun Mar 13, 2016 6:15 am

Knowledge is certainly part of a continuum with regard to science. This is because science is primarily an inductive discipline so deals
with what is probably true rather than what is definitely true. So it is an eternally self correcting system. For this is how it progresses
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby Uccisore » Sun Mar 13, 2016 6:53 am

Yep. Science is one of those fields that if you plot it on the continuum of all of human knowledge, it would be somewhere in the middle- scientific claims are often very-well justified beliefs that don't meet classic definitions for knowledge, since as you say they deal with probabilities. Fracturing belief and knowledge into two completely different things would leave us with no place to attribute scientific theories.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby James S Saint » Sun Mar 13, 2016 11:38 am

James S Saint wrote:Exactly where is the line between greatly confident knowledge and not so greatly confident belief? How do you distinguish when you know versus when you merely believe?

They once "knew" that the laws of Newton were "fact". They had scientifically measured them. But a hundred years later... oops...
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Sun Mar 13, 2016 3:05 pm

HaHaHa wrote:WWIII, please respond to my previous post.


I agree with your last post - in that all knowledge is biased.. That being that all knowledge is based on our subjective experience. That is why it shouldn't have a truth essence as a requirement. It is very often truth I would say, but to consider knowledge truth gives us problems that need reconciliation. We can retroactively say, well our knowledge turned out to be a belief after all... because it was wrong. But what does that say about knowledge to begin with? The justification's for why knowledge is knowledge are reasonable, but the end result of expecting truth may not be, that is my contention.

I think knowledge does not require believing it requires understanding. But understanding doesn't mean truth. I would think that is a more coherent foundation for how things play out in our minds when compared to reality.

If we can just say knowledge is justified belief, there is of course a case for that. I do think that why this should be discarded as I have mentioned quite a bit in previous posts is that if belief is defined as accepting something true, and justified acceptance of something being true is knowledge, then we miss out on the understanding aspect of it, in that it should be knowledge is understanding something is true, not merely accepting that it is true. That has been my point in this discussion, in that acceptance of something is rather rudimentary and doesn't imply understanding. Which is why I say the epistemological foundation of general consensus is lacking when it proclaims knowledge a type of belief.

As such, there is some argument for philosophical epistemology on the matter. Currently it is deemed that truth is in more contention on the aspect of knowledge than belief, and belief not being a part of knowledge being more controversial as well, and I think we can lay out of framework that includes both. Uccisore might say, "But epistemologists defined it that way, its fact!" And I shall merely laugh inside. :)
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3510
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Sun Mar 13, 2016 3:19 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:Being informed is not necessarily the same as understanding although it can be. What it does is provide one with information
But it says absolutely nothing about whether or not that information can be correctly processed or interpreted. If it can then
it is understood and if it cannot then it is not understood. Now to understand something is to know it. Since as I have already
said all knowledge is information but not all information is knowledge. And so knowledge is therefore a subset of information


I agree with everything except knowledge is a subset of information becasue information is very broad and goes beyond the mind. Knowledge does not go beyond the mind. We are talking about how the mind thinks with knowledge, but information exists whether our mind exists or not.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3510
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Sun Mar 13, 2016 3:50 pm

James S Saint wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Exactly where is the line between greatly confident knowledge and not so greatly confident belief? How do you distinguish when you know versus when you merely believe?

They once "knew" that the laws of Newton were "fact". They had scientifically measured them. But a hundred years later... oops...


Yes this is a good question. Where is that line. How do you distinguish that. There is belief, possible belief? Knowledge, possible knowledge in people. People seem to be very confused as to what they think they know, what they think they believe, and what they actually know and what they actually believe.

I blame poor philosophy on the matter to some extent and an ivory tower dilemma of sorts. People aren't taught a very coherent understanding of knowledge, in so much as facts are well "believed", in orthodoxy of epistemological philospohy, yet knowledge is also true in orthodoxy of epistemological philosophy if one considers that knowledge is acceptance of something being true, as is a belief. They know there's a difference between knowledge and belief and epistemology muddles it through a confusing fashion that doesn't really get to the core of how we think in ways I already mentioned, in that knowledge is not acceptance but understanding of something as true. So things get muddied between belief and knowledge. Does it mean anything really at times, when we know beliefs are very different from knowledge, but then anyone can just say all knowledge and science is just belief and argue down to some justification of why knowledge isn't really justified.

But I contest that knowledge is known and understood because of the attitude of knowledge being very different from the attitude of belief. Knowledge isn't acceptance of something as true, it is much more than that. So Plato has a reasonable sentiment that knowledge is justified true belief and we have come a long way since then and realize that is not true, that justification is very much so problematic in epistemology as a whole and that a concise clear philosophy of epistemology is lacking in so much as elitism from Plato's term has built upon itself in a muddy way for the masses and its also a

Uccisore will say its not muddy because he understands it perfectly, and I would agree he does, but here we are with the masses of people saying knowledge is belief or that belief is knowledge and truth is neither, or truth is knowledge or that belief. All of this disagreement I suspect has its roots in inept academic elitism that compounds confusion through lack of clarity and brevity, so the people are not guided on how to think properly because it can't be really explained in a coherent manner to many people. Something like Plato could easily relate to the masses. But academic epistemology has lacked in defining anything as coherent as that in so much as the broader stroke. It also doesn't focus on the more important aspects of how knowledge isn't so much of a belief as has been conveyed, or a belief at all- it instead focuses on how knowledge is a belief and builds off that, because, well, Plato. So how epistemology defines knowledge differs from how I presented the definition of knowledge. People see things as knowledge, then get disproven, people see things as belief and think its knowledge. Who are they to turn to, people that think knowledge is a belief for understanding? There is a better way and a more intelligent way and I contest it can come down to providing a different epistemological framework that discards JBT, discards truth as a requirement for knowledge and puts belief in some reptilian inept form of stupidity that it should be. Also lay it out in a very clear manner that doesn't consist of overlapping of knowledge, belief, truth and opinion as it currently is in the field, all finding ways to find similarities just because they have already all been deemed similar with JTB, which doesn't do us any good in parsing our own thoughts I contest.

I see it as simply easiest to think that:

Belief is not knowledge, anything can believe anything they want without any justification whatsoever. Anything can be believed to be true.

Knowledge is not belief, proper justification, reason and logic is required, it a state of understanding, comprehension. Most of it is likely truth, however our subjective experience cannot allow us to say all knowledge is truth.

Doubt is not a belief, but a state of uncertainty, neither belief or knowledge.

Opinion is not a belief, but an extension of our values.

Clear, concise, not muddied.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3510
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Sun Mar 13, 2016 3:54 pm

Uccisore wrote:Yep. Science is one of those fields that if you plot it on the continuum of all of human knowledge, it would be somewhere in the middle- scientific claims are often very-well justified beliefs that don't meet classic definitions for knowledge, since as you say they deal with probabilities. Fracturing belief and knowledge into two completely different things would leave us with no place to attribute scientific theories.


What science claims are that? Evolution maybe? Relativity? Just curious
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3510
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Sun Mar 13, 2016 3:56 pm

Uccisore wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:Being informed is not necessarily the same as understanding although it can be. What it does is provide one with information
But it says absolutely nothing about whether or not that information can be correctly processed or interpreted. If it can then
it is understood and if it cannot then it is not understood. Now to understand something is to know it. Since as I have already
said all knowledge is information but not all information is knowledge. And so knowledge is therefore a subset of information


One of the main reasons why knowledge is best understood as a type of belief, in addition to what I've already given, is that knowledge is part of a continuum: there's guesses and horrible reasoning and blind hopes on one end, and absolutely certain self-evident truths on the other, but there's also every possible grade in between. Knowledge and believe are the same type of thing because there is clearly no hard break where one stops and the other begins. Whether or not information can be correctly processed is just one of those considerations- some knowledge doesn't require much if any interpretation, some knowledge *is* an interpretation of some basic fact.


Its best understood that knowledge is not truth but understanding, and knowledge is not belief. Then a logical understanding and categorization of belief, knowledge and truth can occur.

You say there is no hard break where one stops and one begins, because academic philosophers have been too busy focusing on JTB, thinking inside Plato's box.

Categorizing the way the mind thinks is a matter of philosophy, not hard science and I provided reason why the categorization is flawed. How understanding things is not accepting things as true, and that is the crux. How knowledge may never be absolute to always show truth, so therefore losing the requirement of it being truth ought to be dropped.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3510
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users