Epistemological Nihilism.

[Tundra]

MY stance is that humans are incapable of knowing anything, incapable of gaining any knowledge. 

 

This I believe is the strong form of epistemological nihilism, the weak form being 'there is no truth' which I am not defending, and I do not believe. 

 

Knowledge is a justified true belief. With each of the three components being necessary but not sufficient for knowledge. IF you do not believe it, then you do not know it. If it is false, then you do not know it. And most importantly, if you are not justified in believing it, you do not know it. For example if you 'know' that tomorrows powerball numbers will be 1, 15, 17, 22, 34 and then tomorrow we learn that those were in fact the powerball numbers and we ask you how you knew and you say "well I just sort of had a feeling I guess" then it cannot be said that you actually have knowledge. 

 

The justification is the biggest problem, in my opinion, with knowledge. Because any piece of knowledge needs justification, and any justification is  going to be another claim of knowledge. Eventually you will end up getting to a point where you have to admit that you do not know, or you admit that you simply assume that it is the case. This means that all claims of knowledge, if they are founded on anything at all, are ultimately founded on assumptions. Assumptions are by definition something that we cannot know, they are things we have no evidence of, no proof for, and we just accept it as true because it is convenient for us to do so. Some of the basal assumptions that we try to build knowledge on may include things like 'the universe exists' and 'I exist' and 'my senses are fairly trustworthy' and 'my memory is fairly trustworthy' etc. These are all fine assumptions, there are assumptions that I make as well. But when these assumptions are the basis of your knowledge then you cannot claim that you actually know the thing. 

Because justification needs further justification, there is a recursion problem with knowledge as a whole. 

Truth has no recursion problem, because statements are true or false, independent of us. Even if nobody believed that the earth was round, it would still be round and "The Earth is round." would still be true.

Belief has no recursion problem either, as believe requires no justification. As someone in chat pointed out, this means that anyone can believe anything for any reason. Sure. Why not. I don't see any problem with this, you are free to believe that the earth is flat for instance, it's just that you are wrong. (How do I know? I don't, but I am fairly confident.) 

[Will Torbald]

I think this is correct and it shouldn't be controversial. However, I also think that another component is required, which is success. It's a way of justifying theories a posteriori in the absence of a priori justification of the assumptions. You can believe anything, but only a few ideas will actually succeed when put in action. The purpose of knowledge, I believe, is to bridge the mind with the outer world (if you assume there is one). So you can say that science can't obtain full knowledge, but you can also point out that it has the highest rate of success in bridging the mind with the world, predicting natural events, and taking control of the elements and forces. You may believe prayer will heal your infection, but scientific medicine has more success, thus more justification even if the justification can only be near perfection and never perfect.

[shirgall]

 

MY stance is that humans are incapable of knowing anything, incapable of gaining any knowledge.

 

 

 How do you know that?

[Will Torbald]

How do you know that?

Where does it say it is knowledge? It's a funny quip, but saying "my stance" is different from saying "I know with fully justified belief". But maybe you didn't read after that and thought it was enough.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

"The justification is the biggest problem, in my opinion, with knowledge. Because any piece of knowledge needs justification, and any justification is  going to be another claim of knowledge. Eventually you will end up getting to a point where you have to admit that you do not know, or you admit that you simply assume that it is the case."

 

This is just bullshit you made up. You use the word assumption and say "all knowledge claims ultimately are founded on assumptions" as if that proves anything. If you want to call something an assumption that's fine, but if you refuse to acknowledge that thing which is an assumption, and it leads you to a self detonating argument, then you're incorrect. You can say I'm incorrect because I'm assuming that which doesn't lead to a self detonating argument, but then you're just a hypocrite because you're holding me to a higher standard of proof than you hold yourself. Fraud. 

[shirgall]

Where does it say it is knowledge? It's a funny quip, but saying "my stance" is different from saying "I know with fully justified belief". But maybe you didn't read after that and thought it was enough.

 

It's your stance that you believe, truly, and are justified in believing, what your stance is, yet somehow you are also incapable of knowing this.

[Tundra]

 How do you know that?

 

(How do I know? I don't, but I am fairly confident.) 

Read what I wrote.

 

 

 

It's your stance that you believe, truly, and are justified in believing, what your stance is, yet somehow you are also incapable of knowing this.

If you read my post you would see that

A.) I already admitted I don't know.

B.) I gave reasons/arguments why I believe this and think it is a reasonable thing to believe. 

C.) Pointed out that beliefs require no justification.

[shirgall]

If you read my post you would see that

A.) I already admitted I don't know.

B.) I gave reasons/arguments why I believe this and think it is a reasonable thing to believe. 

C.) Pointed out that beliefs require no justification.

 

I see it as a self-detonating argument, nonetheless, because I know what the words mean and what they connote.

[EclecticIdealist]

If we define knowledge as a belief in that which is absolutely true which is absolutely justified, then knowledge is impossible about anything beyond self-existence and conception or the formation of ideas.

 

If on the other hand, we take the position that knowledge is belief in that which is true which is reasonably justified, then knowledge is a matter of relative precision, just as truth is a matter of relative precision. Knowledge then is an approximation of truth that is reasonably justified in being believed. One will never have absolutely certain knowledge, one will only have varying degrees of relatively certain knowledge. An absolutist would of course consider such beliefs to be unjustified, and therefore, not knowledge; however, I believe there is utility in using the term knowledge to refer to a reasonably justified, relatively certain belief in that which is approximately true.

[Tundra]

I see it as a self-detonating argument, nonetheless, because I know what the words mean and what they connote.

Where is the self detonation? Also maybe you shouldn't use connotations and rather use denotations. Because 'self detonating argument' denotes that the argument defeats itself. But in my mind it connotes that the person saying it doesn't know what they're talking about, listens to stef to much, and doesn't know what a 'self refuting idea' is or a 'stolen concept fallacy'  which is what everyone except stefan calls them.  See why when engaging in debate it's better to stick to denotations rather than connotations? This also relates to the principle of charity, in which when someone says something that can be interpreted in multiple ways, you choose to interpret it in the most interesting way, or the strongest way, or the most relevant way. etc.

 

https://www.csun.edu/~bashforth/098_PDF/06Sep15Connotation_Denotation.pdf

 

 

If we define knowledge as a belief in that which is absolutely true which is absolutely justified, then knowledge is impossible about anything beyond self-existence and conception or the formation of ideas.

Not even self existence can be known for certain. (although I believe that it is very very very very likely)

 

If on the other hand, we take the position that knowledge is belief in that which is true which is reasonably justified, then knowledge is a matter of relative precision, just as truth is a matter of relative precision. Knowledge then is an approximation of truth that is reasonably justified in being believed. One will never have absolutely certain knowledge, one will only have varying degrees of relatively certain knowledge. An absolutist would of course consider such beliefs to be unjustified, and therefore, not knowledge; however, I believe there is utility in using the term knowledge to refer to a reasonably justified, relatively certain belief in that which is approximately true.

Can you give an example of a belief that is justified to a reasonable degree that it graduates to knowledge? Because as I pointed out any justification is another knowledge claim and each additional knowledge claim requires additional justification. Eventually even the "reasonably justified" beliefs are going to reduce down to assumptions and assertions which isn't a 'reasonable justification' (although this is not to say that they are not reasonable assumptions)

 

As an aside, it looks like you and I will share the same fate, being down voted because people disagree with us, in an attempt to censor us. 

 

 

[shirgall]

Where is the self detonation? Also maybe you shouldn't use connotations and rather use denotations. Because 'self detonating argument' denotes that the argument defeats itself. But in my mind it connotes that the person saying it doesn't know what they're talking about, listens to stef to much, and doesn't know what a 'self refuting idea' is or a 'stolen concept fallacy'  which is what everyone except stefan calls them.  See why when engaging in debate it's better to stick to denotations rather than connotations? This also relates to the principle of charity, in which when someone says something that can be interpreted in multiple ways, you choose to interpret it in the most interesting way, or the strongest way, or the most relevant way. etc.

 

https://www.csun.edu/~bashforth/098_PDF/06Sep15Connotation_Denotation.pdf

 

 

Not even self existence can be known for certain. (although I believe that it is very very very very likely)

 

Can you give an example of a belief that is justified to a reasonable degree that it graduates to knowledge? Because as I pointed out any justification is another knowledge claim and each additional knowledge claim requires additional justification. Eventually even the "reasonably justified" beliefs are going to reduce down to assumptions and assertions which isn't a 'reasonable justification' (although this is not to say that they are not reasonable assumptions)

 

As an aside, it looks like you and I will share the same fate, being down voted because people disagree with us, in an attempt to censor us. 

 

 

 

Because you have to know an incredible number of things just to make an argument that you can't know anything. You have to know how to communicate, how to argue, what words mean, and believe that you can not only impart knowledge to another person and convince them that some knowledge is true and that other knowledge is false. But when your words are, on top of this massive framework that millions of years of the universe trying to kill our ancestors produced, "I'm wrong and so are you" it doesn't really go anywhere, does it?

 

Yes, certain words and definitions can fall into traps of circular definitions, but it really doesn't happen very often. There's a reason I push hard on defining terms and clarifying arguments when they get bent into these logical traps, but there's also a reason I don't spend all that much time on them. They are traps set by the nihilists to waste precious time we could be going out and doing something productive.

[EclecticIdealist]

Not even self existence can be known for certain. (although I believe that it is very very very very likely)

I believe, like DeCartes, that self-existence can be rationally deduced from the experience of self-reflection. What our existence entails (are we a brain in a vat, or a butterfly dreaming of being human, etc.), however, cannot be known with absolute certainty.

 

Can you give an example of a belief that is justified to a reasonable degree that it graduates to knowledge?

I am of the opinion that most beliefs which directly follow most perceived sensory experience are justified to a reasonable degree that they may be considered knowledge. The incidental conceptions which arise from such perceptions, not so much. Non-incidental conceptions which arise from repeated, similar perceptions more so.

 

For example, I feel heat the sensation of heat upon my skin. I look at my skin and I see that it is illuminated by an external light source. I cast my gaze up and see the sun. I have knowledge of heat and light and what appears to be a very bright source of light and heat in the sky. These I believe can be reasonably considered knowledge. I have memories of having lived in my home with the same woman for approximately 9 years. I have knowledge that I am living with the same person for these 9 years. I have a reasonable belief but not knowledge, that the earth is round and orbits the sun.

 

Because as I pointed out any justification is another knowledge claim and each additional knowledge claim requires additional justification. Eventually even the "reasonably justified" beliefs are going to reduce down to assumptions and assertions which isn't a 'reasonable justification' (although this is not to say that they are not reasonable assumptions).

While I agree that when one gets down to the granular level, one must assume that our perceptions are approximately accurate (relatively precise) and valid mental projections of reality mapped upon our consciousness, one cannot really know such to be the case. Nevertheless, I do not regard this as an ultimate non-starter for the reasonable basis of knowledge. Strict reasoning demands that I cannot know anything outside of my own mind with absolute certainty; and even that which is in my own mind and reasoning must rationally be considered potentially suspect. However, I nevertheless maintain that it would be unreasonable to suppose, given the apparent (not certain) consistency which I seem to recall, that my mind is not generally untrustworthy when it comes to reasoning upon fundamental percepts and concepts; and that therefore it would be unreasonable to assume that my senses are generally unreliable sources of sensory data or something other than what they appear to be.

 

Yes, this means that I believe that reasonably certain knowledge can be had beginning from reasonably certain assumptions about our mind and senses. I understand; however, if you do not agree with this position.

 

As an aside, it looks like you and I will share the same fate, being down voted because people disagree with us, in an attempt to censor us.

[Tundra]

Why couldn't you post something like this the first time? 

Because you have to know an incredible number of things just to make an argument that you can't know anything. You have to know how to communicate, how to argue, what words mean, and believe that you can not only impart knowledge to another person and convince them that some knowledge is true and that other knowledge is false. But when your words are, on top of this massive framework that millions of years of the universe trying to kill our ancestors produced, "I'm wrong and so are you" it doesn't really go anywhere, does it?

I dont have to know anything to make an argument, I just have to believe things to make an argument. For instance I BELIEVE that when I type these words you will understand what I am saying, I do not know this. I believe I am making arguments etc.  And I also believe that I have good reasons to believe these things. 

Where have I "tried to kill" what our ancestors produced? Also I never claimed I was wrong, Why would I claim to believe that I was wrong, that would be nonsense. I just claimed I do not know anything.

Also knowledge cannot be false, because truth is in it's very definition, I do not try to convince you that some knowledge is false, and some knowledge is true, I am trying to convince you that some statements are true, and that some statements are false. That is that I am trying to get you to BELIEVE as I BELIEVE, because we cannot know. (in reality I don't care what you believe, I just want the truth, argument I believe is a great means to get the truth, but I have to argue for what I believe in order for it to be rebutted, which is really what I seek)
 

 

Yes, certain words and definitions can fall into traps of circular definitions, but it really doesn't happen very often. There's a reason I push hard on defining terms and clarifying arguments when they get bent into these logical traps, but there's also a reason I don't spend all that much time on them. They are traps set by the nill ists to waste precious time we could be going out and doing something productive.

Oh I see, when a nill ist makes an argument it's a 'trap'. Gotcha. If this isn't just a dismissal of an argument, I don't know what is. 
 

[dsayers]

Why couldn't you post something like this the first time? 

Leading with "it is certain that nothing can be certain," I don't think you really have a leg to stand on HOW a person approaches such anti-rationality.

[shirgall]

Why couldn't you post something like this the first time? 

 

 

I couldn't because determinism forced me to react to previous stimuli by posting something snarky instead.

 

You did claim you were wrong because I'm assuming you are human and you said humans cannot know anything, but you cannot make such a claim without knowing language. This is saying, "I am wrong." Since I'm human, last I checked (but who knows?), I added, "...and so are you."

 

You are trying to kill the framework that allows us to know things by making the false claim that we cannot know things.

 

Knowledge can be false. People can be be taught something, or infer something, misinterpret their senses, or believe something that is not true. It's still knowledge.

 

By the way, complaining that I mischaracterized a situation as a "trap" without actually addressing the argument I made is not an argument.

[RichardY]

 

Also knowledge cannot be false, because truth is in it's very definition, I do not try to convince you that some knowledge is false, and some knowledge is true, I am trying to convince you that some statements are true, and that some statements are false. That is that I am trying to get you to BELIEVE as I BELIEVE, because we cannot know. (in reality I don't care what you believe, I just want the truth, argument I believe is a great means to get the truth, but I have to argue for what I believe in order for it to be rebutted, which is really what I seek)

 

 

I think when the terms Knowledge and Belief are used. It's kind of like two Matrix's being integrated("Justification"(Not the best term IMO)) or attached to one or another.  

 

With Knowledge being the larger Matrix(Or Neural Network). 

and Belief being a kind of separate smaller or less Integrated Matrix (Neural Network).

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

 

MY stance is that humans are incapable of knowing anything, incapable of gaining any knowledge. 

 

 

Then you can't know that that's your stance. You can't know you're confident and you can't know anything. 

I dont have to know anything to make an argument, I just have to believe things to make an argument. For instance I BELIEVE that when I type these words you will understand what I am saying, I do not know this. I believe I am making arguments etc.  And I also believe that I have good reasons to believe these things. 

 

You don't know if you believe it because you can't know anything.  

 

 

 

Oh I see, when a nill ist makes an argument it's a 'trap'. Gotcha. If this isn't just a dismissal of an argument, I don't know what is. 

 

You don't know that don't know anything. 

[Tundra]

You did claim you were wrong because I'm assuming you are human and you said humans cannot know anything, but you cannot make such a claim without knowing language. This is saying, "I am wrong." Since I'm human, last I checked (but who knows?), I added, "...and so are you."

 

I already addressed your argument that I must know language to make an argument.

 

 

 

You are trying to kill the framework that allows us to know things by making the false claim that we cannot know things.

Saying my claim is false is not an argument.

 

 

 

Knowledge can be false. People can be be taught something, or infer something, misinterpret their senses, or believe something that is not true. It's still knowledge.

How can you know something that is false. If you are going to use a different definition of knowledge then the one I posted in the OP, then you need to at least make that known. It seems like you are conflating belief and knowledge. A belief can be false, Knowledge cannot be false because knowledge is a belief that is true that you are justified to believe.

 

 

 

By the way, complaining that I mischaracterized a situation as a "trap" without actually addressing the argument I made is not an argument.

What argument? Calling my argument a trap isn't an argument. Then you claimed you "push hard" to define terms, I defined knowledge in the first post, then you make claims that are directly contrary to that definition.  Also if you made an argument I didn't address, then I'll just say it's a trap and ignore it, since I guess that is fair play.

 

 

Then you can't know that that's your stance. You can't know you're confident and you can't know anything. 

 

You don't know if you believe it because you can't know anything.  

 

 

You don't know that don't know anything. 

No but I can believe that it's my stance, I can believe I am confident, I can believe that I believe it, and I can believe that I don't know anything.

 

And hey, I do believe all those things. I never claimed to know any of those things. 

[shirgall]

Calling my argument a trap isn't an argument. Then you claimed you "push hard" to define terms, I defined knowledge in the first post, then you make claims that are directly contrary to that definition.

 

No, I asked how you knew, and I meant how do you know your stance is "humans are incapable of knowing anything, incapable of gaining any knowledge."

 

I assert that knowing one's stance is possible. You seem to claim the same. How is the knowing of ones stance not a justified, true belief?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

 

No but I can believe that it's my stance, I can believe I am confident, I can believe that I believe it, and I can believe that I don't know anything.

And hey, I do believe all those things. I never claimed to know any of those things. 

 

You can't know if you believe that's your stance. To claim to believe something is to claim you know you believe it and to know what belief means and to know what stances are and to know you exist to believe. But you can't know anything.

 

You can't believe you don't know anything. That's because you can''t know anything and that includes your belief that you don't know anything. 

 

You can't say you never claimed to know any of those things because that absolute is a claim to know that you never claimed to know any of those things. But as you cannot know anything then you cannot know that. 

[Will Torbald]

It's your stance that you believe, truly, and are justified in believing, what your stance is, yet somehow you are also incapable of knowing this.

 

You use knowledge in the way that can be explained as "I have information in my mind". If you say that I need to know English to make an argument, what you mean is that "I have the information of English in my mind". But that is not the Knowledge being debated in the first place. I am not saying people are incapable of holding information in their minds. If I say "I know my position is X" I mean that "I hold the information of the position X as my basis for epistemology about Knowledge in the most abstract and completely philosophical way, containing the characteristics of justification, truth, and belief" - which when disected that way is not a contradiction. That is an issue with the English language for being so crude and basic with the words it has that require entire phrases to differentiate nuances within the same word.

[shirgall]

You use knowledge in the way that can be explained as "I have information in my mind". If you say that I need to know English to make an argument, what you mean is that "I have the information of English in my mind". But that is not the Knowledge being debated in the first place. I am not saying people are incapable of holding information in their minds. If I say "I know my position is X" I mean that "I hold the information of the position X as my basis for epistemology about Knowledge in the most abstract and completely philosophical way, containing the characteristics of justification, truth, and belief" - which when disected that way is not a contradiction. That is an issue with the English language for being so crude and basic with the words it has that require entire phrases to differentiate nuances within the same word.

 

S = Tundra

p = "My stance is x"...

 

1. The best evidence of p is S's beliefs

2. The only evaluator of the truth of S's beliefs is S

3. If S believes p, then p is justified and true

4. S believes p

5. Therefore S knows p (justfied, true belief)

6. x is "there is no p, where S can know p"

7. x says there can be no p where S can know p, which violates #5

 

This is a problem.

[csekavec]

Existence is the first axiom of philosophy. Axiom, not assumption. 

 

Tundra, do you exist?

[Tundra]

Existence is the first axiom of philosophy. Axiom, not assumption. 

 

Tundra, do you exist?

I don't know, I believe so, but I'm also fairly close to certain! 

 

S = Tundra

p = "My stance is x"...

 

1. The best evidence of p is S's beliefs

2. The only evaluator of the truth of S's beliefs is S

3. If S believes p, then p is justified and true

4. S believes p

5. Therefore S knows p (justfied, true belief)

6. x is "there is no p, where S can know p"

7. x says there can be no p where S can know p, which violates #5

 

This is a problem.

The problem with this is that I never claimed knowledge at any point, and if you asked me I would admit that all of my beliefs are ultimately unjustified. #3 is where you misstep. Sure you can say If S believes P, then P is true.  but what justification is there to say that I believe something? Any justification itself falls into the recursive problem of justification, as I explained in the OP post. 

 

You can't know if you believe that's your stance. To claim to believe something is to claim you know you believe it and to know what belief means and to know what stances are and to know you exist to believe. But you can't know anything.

 

You can't believe you don't know anything. That's because you can''t know anything and that includes your belief that you don't know anything. 

 

You can't say you never claimed to know any of those things because that absolute is a claim to know that you never claimed to know any of those things. But as you cannot know anything then you cannot know that. 

Good thing I never claimed to know, I just claimed to believe. To claim I believe something is to claim that I believe that I believe it. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow, isn't the same thing as I know I believe the sun will rise tomorrow.  "Well how do you know you believe the sun will rise tomorrow".    I don't but I am believe that I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, and I am pretty confident. Belief doesn't have a recursion problem because belief requires no justification, I addressed this in the OP.

 

No, I asked how you knew, and I meant how do you know your stance is "humans are incapable of knowing anything, incapable of gaining any knowledge."

 

I assert that knowing one's stance is possible. You seem to claim the same. How is the knowing of ones stance not a justified, true belief?

I addressed this in the OP. I don't know. I believe, there is no justification for the belief. I believe it to be true though, and I think it's fairly reasonable for me to believe that I am correct in identifying what I am thinking. 

 

Maybe you can quote me where I said I know what my stance is? 

 

Also earlier you were claiming that knowledge can be false, and now you seem to be using the justified true belief definition, are you not even going to acknowledge this? 

 

 

Ultimately, you can brush away my arguments, brush away my stance with claims that it is self detonating, but this should raise a very serious question in your mind, at the very least. 

 

How is it that I know what I know? Any time you find an answer, ask yourself, how do I know this? Rinse and repeat, and soon you will see the nature of your knowledge, unfounded, unjustified, resting on shifting sands and empty air. 

 

I think when the terms Knowledge and Belief are used. It's kind of like two Matrix's being integrated("Justification"(Not the best term IMO)) or attached to one or another.  

 

With Knowledge being the larger Matrix(Or Neural Network). 

and Belief being a kind of separate smaller or less Integrated Matrix (Neural Network).

I honestly have no idea what you mean to say, I really don't. I'm sorry. I read this a few times and still don't understand. Maybe you can elaborate or explain in other words? 

 

 

[Will Torbald]

S = Tundra

p = "My stance is x"...

 

1. The best evidence of p is S's beliefs

2. The only evaluator of the truth of S's beliefs is S

3. If S believes p, then p is justified and true

4. S believes p

5. Therefore S knows p (justfied, true belief)

6. x is "there is no p, where S can know p"

7. x says there can be no p where S can know p, which violates #5

 

This is a problem.

 

1- ok...

2- not necessarily, if she says her stance is X but behaves according to Y then we can infer that the evidence that her stance is X doesn't hold

3- woah woah, back up - since when is believing in X enough to make X justified and true? This makes religions and fairy tales real.

4- yeah, but if she made the differentiation between belief and knowledge, then 4 is just a repetition of the initial case

5- doesn't follow from the objection I made in 3

6- doesn't follow from my objection in the post you're replying to when I say that holding information and holding knowledge are different things. She holds the information of her belief that she can't hold knowledge; not a problem.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

 

Good thing I never claimed to know, I just claimed to believe. To claim I believe something is to claim that I believe that I believe it. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow, isn't the same thing as I know I believe the sun will rise tomorrow.  "Well how do you know you believe the sun will rise tomorrow".    I don't but I am believe that I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, and I am pretty confident. Belief doesn't have a recursion problem because belief requires no justification, I addressed this in the OP.

 

You don't have to claim you know. Justification is not an issue. Justify your belief or don't. It's all the same and you wouldn't know anyway.  Belief is something you think is true. You don't know if you believe you believe. You don't know if you believe that you believe that you believe . . . and so on.  As soon as you claim to believe X you're claiming knowledge of something. 

You also don't know if belief requires justification. You can't know ANYTHING. So stop telling me X doesn't need this or that and how reality works. You don't know anything. You don't know what you wrote in your OP. You don't know what you addressed. 

 I addressed this in the OP.

 

Your theory of knowledge requires omniscience. A standard of knowledge be must logically possible in order to be a rational standard. Omniscience is not logically possible. Therefore your theory of knowledge is not rational. 

 

 

 

I don't know, I believe so, but I'm also fairly close to certain!

 

If you don't exist then you can't be believing you don't know you exist. So you can't logically say you don't know. The only logical option is that you do know you exist. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

 I'm also fairly close to certain! 

 

You can't logically claim that you can't know anything and you are close to certain. It's like saying you're close to the top of a mountain but reaching the top is impossible. Degrees of certainty entail the existence of actual certainty. Climbing towards the top of a mountain entails the existence of the top of the mountain. But the mountain you posit is an infinitely high mountain and as such has no top. 

[EclecticIdealist]

Not even self existence can be known for certain. (although I believe that it is very very very very likely)

I share the opinion of Rene DeCartes on that one. I believe reason alone leads one to the inexorable conclusion of one's existence and cognition. On the other hand, it does not inform one of any absolute certainty of anything more than this, including the nature of such existence, or the reliability of one's cognition or reasoning.

 

Because as I pointed out any justification is another knowledge claim and each additional knowledge claim requires additional justification. Eventually even the "reasonably justified" beliefs are going to reduce down to assumptions and assertions which isn't a 'reasonable justification' (although this is not to say that they are not reasonable assumptions).

 

Can you give an example of a belief that is justified to a reasonable degree that it graduates to knowledge?

Well that really all depends upon what one considers reasonable justification. From what you have stated, by your absolutist standard of justification, I cannot. The absolutist perspective renders the term knowledge an unobtainable, theoretical abstract; whereas a less precise requirement of justification renders knowledge a term describing a rationally justified belief in that which is almost, but not absolutely, certainly true.

 

When one considers justification, one is ultimately considering the reliability or confidence in the accuracy of the sources of information, and the logical reasoning (if any) which creates the conception or idea that is believed. We obtain such confidence by eliminating or at least striving to minimize the subjectivity of the observations through multiple views over time, and multiple, independent observers. When the multiple views from multiple sources consistently result in the same information, our confidence increases in the reliability of the information. Similarly, when multiple individuals arrive at the same conclusions as a result of adherence to the principles of logic and reason, our confidence in the accuracy of the reasoning increases. We are never able to fully eliminate the subjectivity of observations and reasoning, and so we are never able to arrive at absolute, objective justification for belief, and thus, pragmatically, we cannot have any objective knowledge of anything outside of our own internal realization of our own existence and cognition. 

 

As an aside, it looks like you and I will share the same fate, being down-voted because people disagree with us, in an attempt to censor us.

Yeah, some people lack the ethical integrity, or intellectual honesty to handle others disagreeing with him intellectually or ethically without seeking to muffle them. It's childish really.

[RichardY]

I think when the terms Knowledge and Belief are used. It's kind of like two Matrix's being integrated("Justification"(Not the best term IMO)) or attached to one or another.  

 

With Knowledge being the larger Matrix(Or Neural Network). 

and Belief being a kind of separate smaller or less Integrated Matrix (Neural Network).

 

I honestly have no idea what you mean to say, I really don't. I'm sorry. I read this a few times and still don't understand. Maybe you can elaborate or explain in other words? 

 

Knowledge is a justified true belief.

 

Well your equating the term knowledge with belief. Justified as you said is a term you have trouble with.

 

If a child says they believe in Santa Clause or that the World is Flat, maybe they do and to them it is a "true belief".

 

If however some says that the World is Flat, when you belief/know it is round who is to say who is correct and who is not. My point with the Matrix example is a larger more coherent, connected matrix offers more stable lasting memory and perception of the World and not of other peoples sanity or insanity. To me justification might imply some form of previous conditioning or innate evolutionary requirement to survive and multiply.

 

If someone says I believe in God, heaven and Hell, what do you mean by God? If you say God is all knowing, then you don't have freewill so you are predestined for Heaven or Hell which would make no sense and be a redundant concept. To survive however it might be to your advantage to have a strong "belief" in "God" due to social pressure and the insanity of others. If you recognise the evolutionary aspect perhaps you might make a different decision.

[shirgall]

I guess it follows then, if you can't know your own stance on something then knowledge is unattainable. I think the rest of us will muddle on with some form of imperfect knowledge, then, but at least we'll be able to know what our own stance on something is.

[RichardY]

I guess it follows then, if you can't know your own stance on something then knowledge is unattainable. I think the rest of us will muddle on with some form of imperfect knowledge, then, but at least we'll be able to know what our own stance on something is.

On the plus side, I think it leaves the possibility for freewill and for someone to learn. Would be kind of boring playing a video game in God-mode all the time. There is obviously some coherency, which could be called knowledge to allow people to communicate.

[Tundra]

I guess it follows then, if you can't know your own stance on something then knowledge is unattainable. I think the rest of us will muddle on with some form of imperfect knowledge, then, but at least we'll be able to know what our own stance on something is.

I made an argument that argues that you cannot know anything, if you are backing down on your critique of my argument, and then continue on claiming that you know something, surely then there must be some argument you are privy too but are not sharing with us? Of course you won't admit when you're wrong, as you haven't done so in their thread earlier when you were making claims that were clearly false, such as the existence of knowledge of something that is not true.

 

 

 

You don't have to claim you know. Justification is not an issue. Justify your belief or don't. It's all the same and you wouldn't know anyway.  Belief is something you think is true. You don't know if you believe you believe. You don't know if you believe that you believe that you believe . . . and so on.  As soon as you claim to believe X you're claiming knowledge of something. 

No claiming that you believe X and claiming that you know X are two different claims. 

And It doesn't matter that I don't know if I believe X, I believe that I believe X. And I believe that I believe that I believe X, and I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe X, etc. But this recursion isn't an issue for belief because belief requires no justification, I explained this in the OP. 

 

You also don't know if belief requires justification. You can't know ANYTHING. So stop telling me X doesn't need this or that and how reality works. You don't know anything. You don't know what you wrote in your OP. You don't know what you addressed. 

I may not know, for certain, what I wrote in the OP post, my memory might be tricking me, maybe the boards themselves as displaying something I didnt write, maybe FDR doesn't even exist.

 

But I don't believe any of those things. I believe that FDR does exist, I believe that my post displays what I wrote, and I believe that my memory is fairly trust worthy, and I remember what I wrote, and when I read what I wrote it matches my memory, and when I read what I wrote I believe that that is something that I would write. All of these believes lead me to believe that I did address this argument in the OP. I'm also going to assume that you share beliefs like FDR exists and that my post displays what I wrote etc. So you likely ALSO believe that I addressed in the OP. 

 

When you wake up in the morning, and you are getting ready for work, you cannot know if your place of employment still exists, it may have burned down in the night, but your lack of knowledge about that doesn't prevent you from getting ready, and driving to work. Similarly, my lack of knowledge about everything doesn't inhibit me in the least. I've addressed this type of line of argument several times in this thread already. It doesn't matter that I don't know anything, because I believe a lot of things and I have various reasons to believe these things and I believe they are good reasons, and then I am sharing some of these reasons, of which some are arguments, with you. 

 

As for "You don't know if belief requires justification" you're right... So? Do you have some good reason for me to believe otherwise? Because right now the idea that belief doesn't require justification seems to fit well with all the other things I understand and believe about the world around me. 

 

Also for the record, saying that belief doesn't require justification doesn't mean that every belief is justified, or that every belief is true, or that every belief is reasonable, or anything like that.

 

Your theory of knowledge requires omniscience. A standard of knowledge be must logically possible in order to be a rational standard. Omniscience is not logically possible. Therefore your theory of knowledge is not rational. 

A standard of godhood must be logically possible in order to be a rational standard. So lets reduce the standard of godhood so that it achievable! 

 

See how this line of thinking begs the question? It assume that there IS a god and that therefore the standard for godhood must be possible. But to use this sort of reasoning in a debate about the existence of god would be begging the question. If you don't like my definition of knowledge, present your own.

 

If you don't exist then you can't be believing you don't know you exist. So you can't logically say you don't know. The only logical option is that you do know you exist. 

I could be a butterfly dreaming that I am Tundra. In the dream, tundra believes that she doesnt know if she exists. This is logically possible. Do I think this is true? No, I believe I exist, and I think "I exist" is a true statement. This isn't the only logically possible option though. 

 

You can't logically claim that you can't know anything and you are close to certain. It's like saying you're close to the top of a mountain but reaching the top is impossible. Degrees of certainty entail the existence of actual certainty. Climbing towards the top of a mountain entails the existence of the top of the mountain. But the mountain you posit is an infinitely high mountain and as such has no top. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptote 

[shirgall]

I made an argument that argues that you cannot know anything, if you are backing down on your critique of my argument, and then continue on claiming that you know something, surely then there must be some argument you are privy too but are not sharing with us? Of course you won't admit when you're wrong, as you haven't done so in their thread earlier when you were making claims that were clearly false, such as the existence of knowledge of something that is not true.

 

If you claim I cannot have any knowledge, why would you ask me to impart it to you? Why would you expect me to try? I don't even know if that's what your claim was.

[Tundra]

Well your equating the term knowledge with belief. Justified as you said is a term you have trouble with.

 

No. I am not equating them at all. If you re-read what I said you will see that I said that knowledge is a justified true belief. This means that knowledge isn't the same thing than a belief. it's MORE than a belief. It's a belief that is true, and you are also justified in believing it. 

 

If a child says they believe in Santa Clause or that the World is Flat, maybe they do and to them it is a "true belief".

 

No, because the existence of santa, and the shape of the world, exist outside the child. For the record I believe that santa isn't real and the world is round. If I am correct, then the child has false beliefs. 

 

If however some says that the World is Flat, when you belief/know it is round who is to say who is correct and who is not. My point with the Matrix example is a larger more coherent, connected matrix offers more stable lasting memory and perception of the World and not of other peoples sanity or insanity. To me justification might imply some form of previous conditioning or innate evolutionary requirement to survive and multiply.

 

No one can know who is right and who is wrong, but it does seem clear who is rational and who is being irrational isn't it? Based on all the evidence I've seen, and assuming the world exists, and that logic works, and that my senses are trustworthy, and that my memory isn't faulting, and that there isn't a massive global conspiracy to cover up the flatness of the earth (all assumptions that I think are very sound) then we can follow from those and other assumptions, that the world is round. But it is still true that our claim of knowledge about earth's shape, if we choose to make one, is based on assumptions. 

 

As for what you're talking about the the matrix, I still have no idea what you're talking about.

 

If someone says I believe in God, heaven and Hell, what do you mean by God? If you say God is all knowing, then you don't have freewill so you are predestined for Heaven or Hell which would make no sense and be a redundant concept. To survive however it might be to your advantage to have a strong "belief" in "God" due to social pressure and the insanity of others. If you recognise the evolutionary aspect perhaps you might make a different decision.

I don't see how this has any relevance to the topic at hand, can you explain? I am not trying to be difficult but I fail to see the relevance for social reasons one might believe in nonsense and the topic of knowledge.

If you claim I cannot have any knowledge, why would you ask me to impart it to you? Why would you expect me to try? I don't even know if that's what your claim was.

Because you and I both have beliefs, beliefs can be true or false. I would prefer to have true beliefs. If you are claiming my belief is false, I would like to see evidence or an argument to show such, so that I may change my belief and have a true belief instead... 

 

 

Also to recap, earlier you were claiming there was such a thing as false knowledge, now you stopped claiming that, were you wrong, will you admit that?

Earlier you were also claiming that it is self contradictory to believe that you cannot know anything, you admitted that this isn't self contradictory, and then said that it doesn't matter because you and others will still walk around have knowledge, this implies that my belief is false. Given the fact that I have made an argument for my belief, and you have backed down from your rebuttal to my argument, and given the fact that you still believe my belief is false. It then follows that one of the following is true.

 

1.) You want to believe false things, there are no flaws in my argument, you have no counter arguments, and you still choose to believe the opposite of my claim (you believe there is knowledge)

 

or

 

2.) You have some reason, evidence, or argument, that leads you to believe that my claim (that there is no knowledge) is false. 

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it's likely 2 and not 1.      So will you share with us why you believe that there is knowledge? 

[shirgall]

Also to recap, earlier you were claiming there was such a thing as false knowledge, now you stopped claiming that, were you wrong, will you admit that?

 

 

Nope. I gave a list of examples in post #15.

 So will you share with us why you believe that there is knowledge? 

 

I am certain that knowledge exists because I can ascertain what "certain" means. You cannot impart meaning without some knowledge of language, concepts, and reality.