Good insight! I would agree with you.
For your information, as you might suspect, the question of whether or not knowledge is indefeasible is currently being hotly debated in the philosophy of the sciences.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How Do We Know Something is True?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Good insight! I would agree with you.
For your information, as you might suspect, the question of whether or not knowledge is indefeasible is currently being hotly debated in the philosophy of the sciences.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
You can't know truth if you don't know Jesus. Jesus is the truth.
Were the "facts" that were proven untrue ever indeed facts to begin with? Perhaps they were relative truths that were disproven once new discoveries were made?
Thank you for sharing with us your example of a "personal truth."
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Which UT are you referring to?
You've got this absolutely backwards; and that's the truth.
Just about any axiom. All horses are mammals, would be an example of a Universal Truth.
No objections, but mere curiosity: Is there any room in your views for synthetic knowledge?
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Which is substantiated by fact.
Mister Silver
Faith's Nightmare
For something to be considered true, it must be factually substantiated by empirical evidence.
It seems to me you're off to an exceptionally good start. To define truth as conformity to reality seems compatible with the Correspondence Theory of Truth -- which is the oldest and most widely accepted theory, and can be paraphrased as, "Truth is a property of the relationship between a proposition about a reality and the reality itself".
If you are genuinely curious, the reason I've chosen to define "knowledge" as an indefeasible justified truth belief, rather than less rigorously, as merely a justified true belief, is because of Gettier Cases. Those are special cases in which you can have a justified true belief that is, nevertheless, not knowledge. Consequently, the additional rigor. If you're intrigued: Gettier Problem.
Could you give an example of something that you know sans reasonable grounds for claiming that you know it?
Curious George
Veteran Member
Is that true?
Curious George
Veteran Member
Absolutley. Does that however mean that we can know that our synthetic knowledge is true? I know how to ride a bike. This is different than knowledge that. But me knowing how to ride a bike is contingent on other assumed truth regarding the system. That is to some degree even knowledge how is rooted in synthetic knowledge. However it is analytically true to say that if my synthetic knowledge is indeed knowledge, then I know how to ride a bike. This is truth. It cannot be false within the system.
Curious George
Veteran Member
What evidence substantiates the truth of this statement you have made?
Last edited:
And looks to me like the same thing as 'accuracy'.
I got as far as this:
"The person’s belief that p needs to be true. If it is incorrect instead, then — no matter what else is good or useful about it — it is not knowledge. It would only be something else, something lesser. Admittedly, even when a belief is mistaken it can feel to the believer as if it is true. But in that circumstance the feeling would be mistaken; and so the belief would not be knowledge, no matter how much it might feel to the believer like knowledge."
And I thought, that can't be right: it's wholly possible to be mistaken in what you know, yet that doesn't stop you knowing it.
Not only that, but the statement above assumes that there is some wholly objective test of what is 'true' ─ in my terms, whether a statement about reality is exactly accurate or not. But 'truth' changes. It's simply our best opinion from time to time.
(Then I got to the Gettier cases, and thought, how on earth does the observation 'ten coins in Jones' pocket' justify the conclusion 'reason why Jones gets the job'? I see no 'justification' there. So I backed off.)
I rather like that statement, on the face of it. Thanks!
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
We don't know....... and 'evidence for truth' has failed so often, for so many differing reasons......
No..... Although experience can build upon 'intuition' and 'feeling' it is not a reliable guide on its own. Where 'feeling' helps towards truth is that wise people can 'take more interest' and 'focus more closely' upon a thing when their feelings 'ring'. Some people call these feelings 'Tells'.
Most sadly, No. unfortunately humans are very prone to following agendas, prone to corruptions, or just plain incompetent. We have to individually investigate to out best abilities.
No! I am reminded of the Grenfell Tower fire, in a building designed, tested, approved, protected...... by sciences. The people believed in the building and even obeyed the rule to 'Stay in their flats' while everything burned its way to theirs.
..................OK.......
No. Unfortunately propositions can be untruths to the extent that they correspond to a state of affairs.
No....... most sadly, knowledge is a word long ago usurped by villains, deceivers, fools, as well as genuine investigators.
That's harder! After a lifetime of smashing up people's certitudes (I regularly worked as a defence detective) all I can offer is that:-
'Knowledge is the idea that happens to be in Fashion'.
Logic is the wise old owl building it's nest in a tree that it can not know will be cut down next week ..... truly!
Jumi
Well-Known Member
Basically I meant to say that the claim can be evaluated as being true in that case.
Curious George
Veteran Member
How do you know this?
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
If I wanted, or needed, to use another word, I would have.