Intro to Epistemology

[@artyomukhov346]

Great review of the attempts to resolve the Gettier's cases!

[@sackclothandashes1342]

Excellent video! Must be tough trying to be pithy with subjects such as these. A whole lot of info packed into one half-hour!

[@abdein1981]

What’s the difference if the paper was red because of the red light projected on it, red color, or the redness perception (subjectively)?

[@ApologetykaReligia]

Amazing stuff! Thank you very much :)

[@joefromzohra]

In all the cases presented, the person making a claim about his/her knowledge did not have all of the facts - there was a missing piece of information that was given in the situation that you and I knew about, except for the person making the knowledge claim. And so the only conclusion one can make is that you have only degrees of certainty in knowledge. As we discovered more facts, the more we know. However, Quantum Mechanics - which claims that for incompatible observables, such as position and momentum, the greater the certainty in knowing one brings about a greater uncertainty in knowing the other - puts a limit on the "more facts we have, the more we know".

[@PhilHelper]

+joseph palazzo Interesting point. I'll make two observations. 1. Be leery of making knowledge require having all relevant facts. If so, knowledge seems to require more than the human mind can ever have access to..hence, skepticism. 2. A temptation is, as I think you suggest, to restrict knowledge to claims like "I know it is highly probable that X." A question I'll cover in another lecture is "Do we often form such beliefs?" For instance, at the present moment, do I believe "It is highly probable that there is a computer in front of me" or simply that "There is a computer in front of me?" Maybe both? If so, do I know the first proposition, but not the second? Or perhaps I've misinterpreted you...did you mean that knowledge occurs in degrees or did you suggest instead that we only have knowledge of the degree of probability a proposition enjoys. I took you to mean the second... It's your call. I'll be interested to see what you think...

[@keaco73]

If you can't show it, you don't know it :). -AR

[@acvarthered]

Why are modern phylosophers arguing over a bronze age definition of knowledge that self detonated several centuries ago? Do phylosophers have some sick fetish for beating dead horses?

[@ThinkTank255]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Can you elaborate? You believe the issue of knowledge was settled centuries ago? By who? What is the definition of knowledge? I am not trying to debate you here. I honestly want to know what you are claiming to know.

[@acvarthered]

ThinkTank255 As the arguments he is presenting show the idea of classical knowledge is self detonating. It contradicts itself. No the issue of knowledge is not settled. You still, as he points out, have modern philosiphers who are trying to save classical epistimology. That is the problem with philosophy. It is not grounded. It is all opinion especially classical philosoply. Descartes cut it back to I think therefore I am and then created a circular argement to save the rest. Hume didn't even give us that much to hold onto and gave us the first glimpses of pragmatic solutions. It is not that the idea of justified true belief is dead, but it should be because there is no such thing in the world that we experience. I personally ascribe to a form of pragmatism. My definition of knowledge is nothing more then a belief that you hold with such conviction that you take actions based on that belief. That is after all what we really mean when we use the word in common speech. As to what truth is it is a belief that informs my actions through its ability to make accurate predictions. Yes both truth and knowledge are transient and subjective in my philosophy, and to a classical trained philosopher that may seem strange, but to any good scientist it just seems obvious.

[@ThinkTank255]

acvarthered "As the arguments he is presenting show the idea of classical knowledge is self detonating. It contradicts itself." I believe there are more modern theories that have been developed, based off of these, that do not contradict themselves. He is just giving an introduction here. "My definition of knowledge is nothing more then a belief that you hold with such conviction that you take actions based on that belief." That is a very bad definition. Much worse than anything presented here, for the REASONS give in the previous video (did you watch it???). You've got the B in JTB+, and I would assert that *any* B, no matter how seemingly trivial or insignificant, will lead to actions based on B. In fact, EVEN if you discount the meaning of B entirely, the very THOUGHT of B leads to a different course of actions than if you had not thought of B. "That is after all what we really mean when we use the word in common speech." I disagree. And, I think you are confusing knowledge with "common sense". There are TWO very different things. It's the difference between having WRITTEN human language and ABSTRACTIONS and, say, bird chirping communication. The key point you are missing is the idea of ABSTRACT knowledge. The abstract class of all zebras is *very* different from that which appears to be a zebra. "As to what truth is it is a belief that informs my actions through its ability to make accurate predictions." Again. I disagree. Similar argument. You are confusing abstract with approximate concrete examples. For example, the idea of the number 1 is an abstraction, however, it has definite concrete examples (1 apple, 1 orange, 1 zebra, etc...) all of which are approximations. I think this confusion among younger students in particular, and I think it comes from intellectual laziness. The unwillingness to consider the abstraction of the abstract itself. Abstraction requires focus. Abstracting the abstraction itself requires much more focus.

[@acvarthered]

ThinkTank255 "I believe there are more modern theories that have been developed, based off of these, that do not contradict themselves. He is just giving an introduction here." Yes and those "theories" are post-nihilistic theories that are a rejections of classical epistimology and its idea of JTB. Lets break it down. You "know" that knwoledge is a JTB. For that to be the case first you must be able to demonstrate that it is true. How can you even imagine doing that? Second you must justify the belief??? I admit that if I want to throw out all reason I can use a circular argument and claim the statement true simple because it is the definition. This leaves knowledge as a meaningless abstraction that has no tie to the real world, but I can not even begine to come up with a way to justify such a belief. "That is a very bad definition." And Hume said that science was a bad philosophy based on a logical falacy, but that it sure does work. It does not matter if you like the definition because it actually works. "I would assert that any B, no matter how seemingly trivial or insignificant, will lead to actions based on B. In fact, EVEN if you discount the meaning of B entirely, the very THOUGHT of B leads to a different course of actions than if you had not thought of B" Complete drivel. Hypethetical situation: A states he knows that doing X will lead to Y and not Z with Y being something good and Z being something very bad. You respond with well if you know this to be true then why don't you go do X. He does not do X. He does not know X despite his claim to know X. "I disagree. And, I think you are confusing knowledge with "common sense". There are TWO very different things. It's the difference between having WRITTEN human language and ABSTRACTIONS and, say, bird chirping communication. The key point you are missing is the idea of ABSTRACT knowledge. The abstract class of all zebras is very different from that which appears to be a zebra." You are 100% correct. I am missing your idea because you have not communicated your idea in a coherent way, and as such I do not have a clue what your idea is. "I think this confusion among younger students in particular, and I think it comes from intellectual laziness. The unwillingness to consider the abstraction of the abstract itself. Abstraction requires focus. Abstracting the abstraction itself requires much more focus." I am beginnig to think this may just be a troll? This says nothing. It is just a veiled ad hominem followed by a bunch of woo.

[@ThinkTank255]

Sometimes I really begin to doubt my reasons for coming to youtube at all. If, instead of questioning the "trollness" of my response you simply respond in a Socratic, rather than Sophist, manner we might get a lot more accomplished here. Is intellectual honesty really too much to ask for? (In this day and age it appears to be too much.) I cannot present my credentials, but I work in the field of machine learning, so knowledge representation is what I deal with. The point is, JTB+ deals with knowledge of abstractions not "common sense" or experiential "knowledge".

[@eltouristoduo]

wow awesome donkey pics ! lol. After some thought on all this history, going back for decades, this is all seems a juvenile framework. It's like they are all 'folk thinkers'. I don't see any challenges at all .Wtf have they been doing all these years? Context is obviously relevant, etc. But when you just simply consider the requirements for empirical knowledge, off course you are going to have an explosion of considerations and modifications of theorize based in such a non-empirical approach. It's like they are playing some perverse elaborate, non-rigorous semantic game. I just don't see the value in it. They seem utterly lost in little modifications and internal-reality processes. How is this a science? I guess there is a scientific side to epistemology, and then there's all this, whatever it is. I will rephrase my view: Knowledge is JTB with empirical justification. Why on earth would we approach the concept of 'everyday knowledge' ANY different than we could the concept of ''scientific knowledge'? They are EXACTLY the same process. We could call them both 'sciences' but the 'everyday' version according to these guys must work some other way. We could also say that 'everyday' process are just less rigorous science. This is why 'everyday' people can so much more easily have false beliefs than science. Everyday people are more subject to all the biases, distortions, assumptions etc. that we could say separate that process from a rigorous scientific process. Funny thing is, I don't think it needs to be that way. If we applied a more rigorous approach to everyday life, one thing that might happen right away is we would suddenly think we knew a lot less. You can imagine some other implications. But that wouldn't render everyday life impractical. On the contrary, we could be more discerning and less easily fooled by ourselves or others. You wouldn't have to investigate everything in a rigorous scientific way to still use good inference and not go any farther than is reasonable. It seems there may be little point it trying to model this in the terms attempted by all these philosophers. It may inform in something, but it doesn't seem to be any kind of actually attempt at some reasonable comprehensive framework. (it seems more a debate-game) I say that the everyday version that people apply is simply 'non-rigorous' science. But these thinkers imply there is some other process. The quality of knowledge gathered is all based on the quality of its rigorous, and it becomes the reliable the more 'justified by fact and proper inference' it is. Just like in scientific knowledge. Matters of individual 'petty' processes in little constructed scenarios...what is that? What can you learn from that? It's not like we are missing some fundamental tools to interpret ALL of those scenarios correctly in PRACTICAL terms, like a criminal investigator for example. They don't need ANY of what is being discussed here, or analyzed here. It seems the reverse is true, that what investigators and scientists do could inform this discussion. That's what good scientists or good investigators already do. So WHAT IS this kind of philosophy for'? Or is it just me? Am I missing something fundamental and important? Or is this what gives philosophy a bad name. Is this sort of philosophy often spectacularly non-rigorous? I think I might be just about done with whatever this is. I've tried really hard to have an open mind about it. I've tired to falsified my view that it is non-rigorous. I'm having so much trouble finding that falsification I'm just about ready to apply the brain calories elsewhere. But if someone can help me see some 'validity' in it, I'm all ears.