Don't we fight for freedom anymore?

[zion]

If it both means nothing and is also undefinable,

then it strikes me that you have no working definition of knowledge at all.

Consequently, how can you assert that I am wrong in mine?

At least I have a working definition.

 

[max_freakout]

I have a working definition.

what is your definition?

 

[zion]

Knowledge is the presence in one's memory of a fact. A fact, further, is a datum that can be falsified through observation or reasoning, but is not falsified by either.

 

[max_freakout]

Knowledge is the presence in one's memory of a fact. A fact, further, is a datum that can be falsified through observation or reasoning, but is not falsified by either.

but you could never know if it was a fact or not

 

[zion]

I can, according to this definition of what a fact is.

Karl Popper is where I get the idea.

 

[Dillinger4]

but you could never know if it was a fact or not

Reeling out the same old wank on this thread as well?

 

[max_freakout]

I can, according to this definition of what a fact is.

Karl Popper is where I get the idea.

a fact must be true

any definition of 'fact' which does not acknowledge this is a false definition

from dictionary:

something that actually exists; reality; truth

but as i said, for any fact, you couldnt possibly know if the fact was true or not, it might turn out to be wrong in the future, in which case it was never really known, but only (falsely) believed, and therefore it wasnt *really* a fact in the first place

 

[Dillinger4]

Here is a something that is factually true:

"snow is white" if and only if snow is white.

 

[max_freakout]

Here is a something that is factually true:

"snow is white" if and only if snow is white.

whether that ^ sentence is true or not is irrelevant

the point is, you couldnt possibly know for certain if it was true or not

because knowledge is impossible

you can only believe that you know, you can't *really* know

 

[Dillinger4]

It is true. I know it is true. It is definitively true. Knowledge is entirely possible.

 

[max_freakout]

It is true. I know it is true. It is definitively true. Knowledge is entirely possible.

how do you know?

 

[Dillinger4]

The problem with you, max, is that your model of knowledge and consciousness was out of date by about the 17th century.

That is probably why the rest of your beliefs seem pretty medieval as well.

 

[zion]

Your argument is circular. You can't use your proposition that knowledge is impossible as part of your argument as to why knowledge is impossible.

A simpler form of Dillinger's sentence is Aristotle's proposition: A is A. For Aristotle, that is the statement from which all philosophy flows, and the thing that he trusts as being true.

We can say that we know A is A, because if A were not in fact A from a meta-human perspective, that knowledge would be utterly without meaning within the human realm.

 

[Dillinger4]

All max has are circular arguments. Thats because what he preaches is religion.

 

[Dillinger4]

The sentence "snow is white" is true in English if and only if snow is white

What do you say max?

 

[max_freakout]

Your argument is circular. You can't use your proposition that knowledge is impossible as part of your argument as to why knowledge is impossible.

it is you who is arguing, with circular reasoning, that knowledge is somehow possible


and you have not stated clearly what distingiushes believing a proposition, from knowing a proposition

without doing this, you are not really defining what knowledge is

A simpler form of Dillinger's sentence is Aristotle's proposition: A is A. For Aristotle, that is the statement from which all philosophy flows, and the thing that he trusts as being true.

We can say that we know A is A, because if A were not in fact A from a meta-human perspective, that knowledge would be utterly without meaning within the human realm.

you can believe that A is A,

but then tomorrow, you might be confronted with a totally unanticipated logical paradox which proves that a isn't A

your belief would then turn out to have been false, but that wouldnt change the fact that you believed it

you couldnt possibly know it though

 

[Dillinger4]

How about Kripke? You told me you have read Kripke.

Is H20 always necessarily H20?

 

[max_freakout]

The sentence "snow is white" is true in English if and only if snow is white

What do you say max?

whether it is or isnt true

you couldnt possibly know either way

how could you?

 

[Dillinger4]

All you have are circular arguments max.

All you can do is continually repeat that you dont know whatever.

Keep chanting.

 

[max_freakout]

You told me you have read Kripke.

lol no i didnt

 

[Dillinger4]

whether it is or isnt true

you couldnt possibly know either way

how could you?

It is necessarily true.

 

[Dillinger4]

lol no i didnt

You did.

You told me you did a module on him in your 'degree'

 

[max_freakout]

All you have are circular arguments max.

im not the one making an argument

 

[Dillinger4]

im not the one making an argument

Backing into the old "I am not even saying anything anyway" tactic.

nice.

I didn't expect that one at all

 

[max_freakout]

You did.

You told me you did a module on him in your 'degree'

ok i dont remember mentioning him

naming and necessity comes very close to making the point that names don't really refer to anything

 

[Dillinger4]

ok i dont remember mentioning him

naming and necessity comes very close to making the point that names don't really refer to anything

Close.

 

[butchersapron]

Max - I am sorry to pester you about more philosophers, but have you ever read any Saul Kripke? He is quite up to date (last 20 years or so).

He is famous for a series of lectures he gave called Naming and Necessity.

yes i read naming and necessity, i studied it in a course on naming and reference, and some other important papers in that area from russell and Quine

?

 

[Dillinger4]

Yep.

Cheers Butchers.

 

[Dillinger4]

I also just noticed another post at the top of this page: It doesn't matter whether you 'believe' in physics or not. It is true due to experimental evidence, and when one theory is disproved, it only makes it more accurate.

It doesn't rely on circular arguments, mysticism, and repeating the same sentences ad infinitum in establishing its 'truth'

 

[Dillinger4]

I reckon max is googling