Originally posted by Lanny
JTB is kinda BTFO'd at this point
I'm sure it's BTFO'd in a way my tiny little pea-sized smoothbrain will never quite appreciate, but I'm glad the big wrinkle brains finally got around to figuring that out. Pretty sure a tweet that... just... casually mentioned JTB was what prompted this thread.
Originally posted by Meikai
Reading the wiki page on Gettier (like I said, my brain is smooth and smol) and like… kinda laughing. Fuck, smart people are dumb.
"Smith knows that it rained today" A subject S knows that a proposition P is true if and only if: P is true
Literally right out the gate with "you can know P is true by knowing P is true".
I mean truth is usually not the controversial criterion for knowledge, it’s kinda just in there for completeness. The problem, as you’ve probably read, is around the relationship between justification and truth.
On the other hand though, I think it’s worth at least considering if we could be said to know untrue things without reducing knowledge to mere belief. E.g. we might say Newton knew about the motion of bodies even if Newtonian physics is now understood to fail to account for some phenomena.
Which I guess is to say we might usefully take knowledge not to be a binary relation between subjects and true propositions but a quantity measuring the efficacy of a subject’s beliefs in predicting or manipulating its environment.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
Originally posted by Lanny
I mean truth is usually not the controversial criterion for knowledge, it’s kinda just in there for completeness. The problem, as you’ve probably read, is around the relationship between justification and truth.
On the other hand though, I think it’s worth at least considering if we could be said to know untrue things without reducing knowledge to mere belief. E.g. we might say Newton knew about the motion of bodies even if Newtonian physics is now understood to fail to account for some phenomena.
Which I guess is to say we might usefully take knowledge not to be a binary relation between subjects and true propositions but a quantity measuring the efficacy of a subject’s beliefs in predicting or manipulating its environment.
I think the Newton example is totally reasonable. Smol brain as I said so I can't into formal logic, but that much checks out using plain ol' common sense.
His knowledge was incomplete, but knowledge nonetheless.
Smart people are still dumb, even if I'm usually dumber.
Originally posted by Meikai
this makes me irrationally angry
"knowledge is justified true belief"
okay but how do you know the belief is true? how do you know it's justified? any definition of knowledge that requires knowledge (of what is True, what is Just) feels... just... inherently wrong. knowledge is a belief that "works" heuristically. if you try to pin down knowledge, you will fail.
im not gonna let some fat nigger european who died decades/centuries/millennia ago define my cognitive processeez. never read. those niggas just tryna make you think/feel/believe a certain way. read stories and absorb the truth by osmosis. if someone purports to have a more direct path, they're full of shit. the lord works through schizophrenic-connect-the-dots. if they couldn't fulfil their obligation to tell you their philosophy through a compelling narative, they were not ordained by god.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
