• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How Do You Define Knowledge?

Chucky said:
Ok, I read a series of comic books about superheroes and their exploits. I follow the story and somewhat asks me what's happened over the last few issues and I tell them about it from memory. Now I don't believe in superhuman exploits. This is material which in fact, is all made up. I know that it is not true, and yet I can relate knowledge of what happened and why. I might remember this storyline for decades and re-tell it a few times.

This is lasting knowledge isn't it?
Click to expand...

Sure, you have knowledge about the plot of some comic book stories. It is true that there is a story in which spiderman gets powers by being bit by a radioactive spider.
 
Chucky said:
Ok, I read a series of comic books about superheroes and their exploits. I follow the story and somewhat asks me what's happened over the last few issues and I tell them about it from memory. Now I don't believe in superhuman exploits. This is material which in fact, is all made up. I know that it is not true, and yet I can relate knowledge of what happened and why. I might remember this storyline for decades and re-tell it a few times.

This is lasting knowledge isn't it?
Click to expand...
This is one of the common dissections of this particular definition.

For example people ask if the sum of our knowledge about Santa Claus, Middle Earth and Spiderman really the same as the sum of our true and justified beliefs about those things?

Other points made about this are whether "justified true" is a tautology - surely something that was justified and false would not really be justified.

Another point that is often made is that we have to have knowledge of a particular proposition before we can justify it. The knowledge we have of a proposition prior to justifying it could not be termed a belief.
 
Roboramma said:
Sure, you have knowledge about the plot of some comic book stories. It is true that there is a story in which spiderman gets powers by being bit by a radioactive spider.
Click to expand...
So by the definition, the proposition "Spiderman gained his powers by being bitten by a radioactive spider" would not constitute knowledge, but the proposition "There is a comic-book story in which Spiderman gained his powers by being bitten by a radioactive spider" does constitute knowledge.

But given the first proposition is clearly not a belief and it is not knowledge, what is it?

And does this really capture what we mean when we say "I know"?
 
Robin said:
This is one of the common dissections of this particular definition.

For example people ask if the sum of our knowledge about Santa Claus, Middle Earth and Spiderman really the same as the sum of our true and justified beliefs about those things?

Other points made about this are whether "justified true" is a tautology - surely something that was justified and false would not really be justified.

Another point that is often made is that we have to have knowledge of a particular proposition before we can justify it. The knowledge we have of a proposition prior to justifying it could not be termed a belief.
Click to expand...

In Gettier's clock example, the person has an unjusitifed true belief (a stopped clock that just happens to be right). Why can't the opposite be true: a normally reliable watch that happens to be a second off? You can be justified in believing it to be accurate, but you don't have a true belief about the time. Justification just deals with why we have a particular belief.

Think of a scientist who arrives at a belief that a coin is loaded after carefully flipping it 20 times in a row and getting heads each time. Whether the coin is loaded or not, the scientist has a justified belief. To say otherwise is to claim that we ought not come to conclusions based on overwhelming evidence on the slim chance we could be wrong.
 
Malerin said:
In Gettier's clock example, the person has an unjusitifed true belief (a stopped clock that just happens to be right). Why can't the opposite be true: a normally reliable watch that happens to be a second off? You can be justified in believing it to be accurate, but you don't have a true belief about the time. Justification just deals with why we have a particular belief.

Think of a scientist who arrives at a belief that a coin is loaded after carefully flipping it 20 times in a row and getting heads each time. Whether the coin is loaded or not, the scientist has a justified belief. To say otherwise is to claim that we ought not come to conclusions based on overwhelming evidence on the slim chance we could be wrong.
Click to expand...
How does that relate to what I said?
 
drkitten said:
And here we have another example of someone toiling for years to rid himself of as much knowledge as possible.

And almost succeeded, too. Only the correct grammar saves this from being wrong in every possible respect.
Click to expand...

Hit and run?

Where are you Dr. Kitten?

I am still waiting you show me where I am wrong in my definition.
 
Chucky said:
Ok, I read a series of comic books about superheroes and their exploits. I follow the story and somewhat asks me what's happened over the last few issues and I tell them about it from memory. Now I don't believe in superhuman exploits. This is material which in fact, is all made up. I know that it is not true, and yet I can relate knowledge of what happened and why. I might remember this storyline for decades and re-tell it a few times.

This is lasting knowledge isn't it?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is.

It is a chunk of information which you will use in some point of your life.

Do not really matter if it is real or if it is scientific tested.

Do not really matter the source of the information.

We are trying to find a definition of knowledge, not what can produce knowledge or which applications the knowledge have in a specific situation.

I agree with your definition because it fits well with my own definition:

"To a living being to know, it is just necessary to be awake".

I guess when you read comic books, you are not sleeping...
 
Robin said:
So by the definition, the proposition "Spiderman gained his powers by being bitten by a radioactive spider" would not constitute knowledge, but the proposition "There is a comic-book story in which Spiderman gained his powers by being bitten by a radioactive spider" does constitute knowledge.

But given the first proposition is clearly not a belief and it is not knowledge, what is it?

And does this really capture what we mean when we say "I know"?
Click to expand...

Yes, capture.

Because when someone ask you any question for a specific information, you will use your knowledge to answer the question, even if you are not aware of the right answer.

About your other question above: the first proposition is a knowledge. The proposition can be made in different ways, but still the information let a person TO KNOW that:

"Spiderman gained his powers by being bitten by a radioactive spider"
 
Chucky said:
Ok, I read a series of comic books about superheroes and their exploits. I follow the story and somewhat asks me what's happened over the last few issues and I tell them about it from memory. Now I don't believe in superhuman exploits. This is material which in fact, is all made up. I know that it is not true, and yet I can relate knowledge of what happened and why. I might remember this storyline for decades and re-tell it a few times.

This is lasting knowledge isn't it?
Click to expand...

The knowledge you have of the storyline is indeed knowledge. You know that in the comic book, Peter Parker got his powers from being bitten by a radioactive spider -- you can justify it by pointing to the relevant panels. It's indeed true that in the comic book, this happened, and you in fact believe that it happened in the comic book.

You also don't believe that Peter Parker's experience reflect the real world -- which is good, because it doesn't. (Or, at least, I hope you can tell the fictional world of the comic book from the real one).
 
Robin said:
Other points made about this are whether "justified true" is a tautology - surely something that was justified and false would not really be justified.
Click to expand...

No, because justification isn't proof.

For an example, if I roll a die six times and it comes up an ace each time, I can justify a belief that the die is loaded and will always roll aces. Even if it isn't, that's where the current evidence points.

Similarly, I can have an unjustified belief that is nevertheless true. If I believe in the teeth of the evidence that that die is not loaded, that's not a justified belief (true or not).

Another point that is often made is that we have to have knowledge of a particular proposition before we can justify it.
Click to expand...

Well, that's just plain silly. You didn't know that the die was loaded before you started rolling it. You might not even have known the concept of a loaded die.
 
SnakeTongue said:
I am still waiting you show me where I am wrong in my definition.
Click to expand...

You're wrong because it's not possible to have knowledge of false propositions, and because mere "awareness" will not only yield true ones.

And you're wrong because it's gibberish from beginning to end.
 
drkitten said:
No, because justification isn't proof.

For an example, if I roll a die six times and it comes up an ace each time, I can justify a belief that the die is loaded and will always roll aces. Even if it isn't, that's where the current evidence points.

Similarly, I can have an unjustified belief that is nevertheless true. If I believe in the teeth of the evidence that that die is not loaded, that's not a justified belief (true or not).



Well, that's just plain silly. You didn't know that the die was loaded before you started rolling it. You might not even have known the concept of a loaded die.
Click to expand...

Nice plagiarism Doc. Next time, just put quotes around what I said and type the word "This".
 
Robin said:
So by the definition, the proposition "Spiderman gained his powers by being bitten by a radioactive spider" would not constitute knowledge, but the proposition "There is a comic-book story in which Spiderman gained his powers by being bitten by a radioactive spider" does constitute knowledge.

But given the first proposition is clearly not a belief and it is not knowledge, what is it?
Click to expand...
It's just something which is false, I don't know if anyone happens to believe it or not.
It's false because Spiderman doesn't exist.
 
drkitten said:
You're wrong because it's not possible to have knowledge of false propositions, and because mere "awareness" will not only yield true ones.

And you're wrong because it's gibberish from beginning to end.
Click to expand...

To know is just to know.

A living being can know that do not know.

We are looking for a definition of knowledge if you still did not get it.

We are not trying to sort out if a certain knowledge can be useful for a specific context.

Yes, it is possible to have knowledge of false propositions. What do you think crazy people debate? The truth about the universe?

How do you KNOW that your definition is not a FALSE PROPOSITION?

Yes, mere awareness yield knowledge. Just try to answer this post while you are sleeping...

About your last sentence: we are here to debate universal subjects, not your personal feelings. Keep your emotional burst to yourself and your cats.
 
Roboramma said:
It's just something which is false, I don't know if anyone happens to believe it or not.
It's false because Spiderman doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

But still is knowledge...

If I invite a old fan of comic books to a interview in a radio show, what I will ask him:

- Hi Peter, I heard that you have a great knowledge about Spiderman comic books. Do you mind if I do some questions about interesting facts in the Spidermand storyline?

or

- Hi Peter, I heard that you have great false propositions about Spiderman comic books. Do you mind if I do some questions about interesting facts in the Spiderman storyline?
 
I wonder if the knowledge of a teenage movie fan who "knows" that Spiderman got his powers from being bitten by a genetically engineered spider should be considered any less valid than the knowledge of a baby-boomer comic-book fan who "knows" that Spiderman got his powers from being bitten by a radioactive spider.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom