If someone has never tasted Coca cola and you describe the taste to him as good as you can, will he then have the knowledge of how it tastes? If you then pour 2 cups which one contains coca cola and the other cup for example pepsi. Will he be able to differentiate between the two?
See Frank Jackson’s ‘what Mary didn’t know’ essay.
Good read, so to experience is to know but why do ones experience differ from other people. Do we know the same thing or do we know different things then?
This Mary: philosophynow.org/issues/99/Wha … hing%20red.
Not sure though if this was before or after she had the abortion.
Next up: what Mary doesn’t know about moral and political value judgments.
Well Jackson’s argument is a little more clever than that because he asks if Mary has all the physical information about the color red, would she learn anything new about the color red if she experienced it… something she had never done before.
If our sensory awareness arranges information about things in our environment, every bit of that data is physical or has physical oranges. Knowledge of the final product, the ‘concept’, would be an organized collection of meanings given to a particular bundle of information, of physical data.
So then in theory if Mary studied everything about red, about any and every experience ever had of red and what that red was like, what would she learn about red when seeing it that she didn’t already know.
Jackson says hell naw the experience actually produces another kind of property or bit of data (qualia) that can’t be learned without actually seeing red. Churchland’s like u trippin dude this is semantics imma write a refutation hold on.
We’re doing epistemology now Biggs, not ethics. Dasein is not dealing with conflicting goods here, bro. We are conceiving of a thought experiment and what that might entail regarding the nature of knowledge (this goes back to physicalism). Chill for a minute bro nobody’s getting an abortion or voting on a gun law.
Imagine Mary grasps everything there is to know about the color red. But has never experienced it. Imagine she does experience it.
Now, imagine she is in a situation where being able to shoot her rifle and kill something that is red becomes a matter of life or death.
In other words, a dangerous red beast is galloping toward her. Along with a completely benign blue and green beast. She knows how to use the rifle.
What then of what she knows/experiences in regard to red?
They are if they wish to defend their epistemological assessments with me. You know, given a particular context. 
what’s the old philosophy bit about knowledge de dicto, de re, and de se?
epistemological assessments are not evaluative bruh
Will saying “water” quench your thirst?
Epistemology: the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.
So, if we take what epistemologists assess to know about capitalism and playing the stock market, and bring that to bear on the arguments of those who claim that capitalism is immoral or merely part of the historical juggernaut leading through socialism to Communism, we are, what, technically committing a “category error”?
Or must we first pin down even here the technically correct distinction between justified belief and opinion?
And you know my own subjective opinions rooted in dasein regarding that, right? 
To the first question, he will have some details. To the second question - I taste a slight difference between Coke and Pepsi - it has been a long time since I have had either. Loaded questions.
We know different things.
I’d say, it would be down to the words we chose to use.
I am going to be a little loose with words so as not to get too hard to understand but I would say even more than that if the guy/gal is only doing “as good as you can” in the description. The number of words would help a little given the detail required to pass sense knowledge from one person to another - can we even pass sense knowledge through words? We are in the realm of the hypothetical and this is a really difficult hypothetical. All answers would fail to address something - what tastes good to one person might taste like shit to another for instance. Well something like this, lol. I think we can only ever pass some details along - our own knowledge is our own…
Sorry to butt in and thanks for giving me more stuff to think about MagsJ.
“And you know my own subjective opinions rooted in dasein regarding that, right? ”
How could I not know, Biggs? You tell me every day.
But look. While you raise a good point - about the application of what we take to be objective facts to ethical questions and situations we find ourselves in - the lack of application thereof does not mean we have no objective facts, only that those objective facts are not useful here.
There has to be some amount of objectivity in the use and meaning of language or else you wouldn’t be able to raise such arguments (that objectively make sense as I have shown)
You’re main weapon is the naturalistic fallacy, and it’s a great weapon, but it can’t be used much in epistemological arguments because values, preferences, attitudes and opinions aren’t in question here.
Wow, and I thought that, given the real deal free will world, no one here is obligated to read anything I post at all!!
Note to Carleas:
That is still the case, right?
Huh?
When have I ever argued that in regard to the historical evolution of capitalism as a political economy [in general] and playing the stock market [in particular] there are not a vast, vast amount of objective facts that we can all agree on?
Are there or are there not useful facts available for both the proponents of capitalism and proponents of socialism? And both sides put those facts into arguments that can be defended as reasonable. Depending on the initial premises that are defended in turn. For example, there are those who insist that human interactions revolve first and foremost around “we”; and then those who insist that, on the contrary, they revolve far more around “I”.
Okay, let’s pin down the objective facts that finally resolve this once and for all. Your facts and, say, phoneutria’s?
We’ll need an actual context of course.
Also, let’s get back to this:
And the point raised by Fixed Cross:
Ur welcome…
In describing Coca Cola… using the best descriptive words we can in describing its taste fully, a person could then successfully differentiate between the two colas.
MagsJ, interesting notion.
I would be interested in reading such a description that allows a consumer to differentiate between the two colas - for this experiment, of course, the consumer would not be allowed to see labels from each brand’s container.
I wonder if any of us would be successful here, on ILP, being able to offer up such a description, and another of us be the consumer that could prove your point.
Have you seen some success of this outside the hypothetical realm?
Of course, such an experiment is always better performed utilizing a person that has never had cola before to be the taster/consumer - in turn, the “prover” of said notion/point.
I take it that you’ve never done that experiment before… at school or elsewhere?
…the results are varied, depending on the individual and their acuity, but the hit rate was surprisingly high, in its correctness.