punished for beliefs in public school?

[Curious George]

Which I addressed by pointing out issues with justification. Gettier addressed this specifically, read my links.



It is falsifiable and fallible since justifications could and can be wrong. For example say I look into a fish tank and see a gold fish. I can state "I know there is a gold fish in the tank." However say I really saw a rock that looks like a gold fish. This makes my justified belief not knowledge since the justification is false. More so say there is a gold fish behind this rock which I did not see. My statement is above is correct but the justification is for my statement is irrelevant.
.

Yes is was a poorly justified true belief as opposed to a well justified true belief.

Again, I addressed this.

 

[Curious George]

Which I addressed by pointing out issues with justification. Gettier addressed this specifically, read my links.



It is falsifiable and fallible since justifications could and can be wrong. For example say I look into a fish tank and see a gold fish. I can state "I know there is a gold fish in the tank." However say I really saw a rock that looks like a gold fish. This makes my justified belief not knowledge since the justification is false. More so say there is a gold fish behind this rock which I did not see. My statement is above is correct but the justification is for my statement is irrelevant.



Turri's response is irrelevant since it does not address fallibilism. Turri has also failed to validate his own principle of entailment and safety of belief.

How does adept belief not address the fallibility of justification? He did precisely this.

 

[Shad]

How does adept belief not address the fallibility of justification? He did precisely this.

Yes is was a poorly justified true belief as opposed to a well justified true belief.

Again, I addressed this.

Russel's clock and the barn facade address this issue. Both intervening and environmental luck render the safety of a belief incompatible with knowledge. Alice sees a clock with reads 2 o'clock. She beliefs it is 2 and is justified due to the clock. However the clock stopped working 12 hours ago. The adeptness fails to justify the view even if it is the correct conclusion. Safety becomes trivially implied thus is a horrible requirement. The barn facade shows that safety of a belief does not manifest competence. It also shows how a good and bad environments are markers for safe and unsafe beliefs. The agent's competence is in recognizing a barn, nothing more. He could be looking at a fake barn thus justification from belief to knowledge has a false foundation. Competence becomes undermine since it is based on the knowledge of appearance rather than investigation. Another issue is justification is based on the agent. The agent assumed a visual external observation was enough to "know" something. This leaves room for very low and subjective standard of justification.

Read the link below. Whether it is true or not is not important. It is the story which explains how the safety requirement of adapt belief fails

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

 

[Willamena]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...r-telling-classmates-he-didnt-believe-in-god/

What are your thoughts on the case?

What are your thoughts in the remedy?

How should the teachers have handled this?

How should the parents have handled this given the teachers reactions in this case?

It's simply outrageous. People can be so cruel.

 

[Willamena]

No it does not. I'm simple English it states they LACK belief.

If a "lack" exists, then there is something that is lacked.

Do you understand what a lack of belief implies? It ONLY means they don't believe in something.

Well, no. It also means that there is something that they don't believe in.

Else, you're asserting belief in nonexistent things.

To not believe in something does not require a person to hold belief.

That's true. But it does require that there be a capacity for belief, which implies that there be something to be believable.

Else, you assert belief in nonexistent things.

If you cannot understand knowledge can surpasses belief, then you can play philosophical circular thinking word games, redefining words at your own personal will, by yourself.

Knowledge does not surpass belief--rather, it is inherent of belief.

Knowledge is justified and true belief.

 

[Curious George]

Russel's clock and the barn facade address this issue. Both intervening and environmental luck render the safety of a belief incompatible with knowledge. Alice sees a clock with reads 2 o'clock. She beliefs it is 2 and is justified due to the clock. However the clock stopped working 12 hours ago. The adeptness fails to justify the view even if it is the correct conclusion. Safety becomes trivially implied thus is a horrible requirement. The barn facade shows that safety of a belief does not manifest competence. It also shows how a good and bad environments are markers for safe and unsafe beliefs. The agent's competence is in recognizing a barn, nothing more. He could be looking at a fake barn thus justification from belief to knowledge has a false foundation. Competence becomes undermine since it is based on the knowledge of appearance rather than investigation. Another issue is justification is based on the agent. The agent assumed a visual external observation was enough to "know" something. This leaves room for very low and subjective standard of justification.

Read the link below. Whether it is true or not is not important. It is the story which explains how the safety requirement of adapt belief fails

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

Ahh I see what you meant now thank you.

But that is fine I am not married to adept belief, I just consider it as one of the Many possibilities accounting for gettier problems (the conclusion from which is being used to wrongly assert that knowledge is not belief).

Regarding Turri, we would just need to add consistent to the definition. This would remove luck and challenge safety. But I think turri responded to this already to barn with baby or something like that. Basically, the idea of limiting knowledge to safe is not necessary. We consider achievement valid even when luck plays a part of that achievement. Requiring the exclusion of luck would be tantamount to excluding knowledge because of the strictness.

All of this, while interesting, doesn't change the fact that knowledge must be belief, and no scholar, of whom I am aware, tries to say that knowledge is not a form of belief.

 

[Curious George]

Popper points out an issue that knowledge itself is impossible thus what we call knowledge is just a belief open to falsification thus can not be true knowledge. Knowledge can not be false but if subject to falsification then we have no real knowledge. There is also the problem of perception and relation raised by Hume, Kant and Russel. There is the problem of fallibility of belief with the infallibility of knowledgelol

Yes, in this instance someone claiming to know, just believes, correct?

Now forgive but this post might be hard to follow as it is likely to be all over the map and it is somewhat of a tangent. If it makes no sense to you, I understand.

Our world is full of shapes, some of these shapes are circles. But, there are no perfect circles. This however does not mean that a perfect circle existing in some alternate reality(I.e. the forms) or even in our conception of such is possible is not a shape.

The same is true for knowledge. While it may be the case that knowledge cannot exist as you have expressed above here, a knowledge -that existing in another reality or even just in conception entails belief.

However, if it is the case where we cannot fathom knowledge and still have it known by acquaintance or perception, such that we only know a potential knowledge (since knowledge that cannot exist without then claiming some greater plane such as the forms) even potential knowledge-that necessitates belief.

Belief is just taking something to be the case or acceptance of its truth. Thus, knowledge requires belief.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/

(See also, section 2.6 in same source which notes:

"The traditional analysis of knowledge, brought into contemporary discussion (and famously criticized) by Gettier (1963), takes knowledge to be a species of belief—specifically, justified true belief. Most contemporary treatments of knowledge are modifications or qualifications of the traditional analysis and consequently also treat knowledge as a species of belief)."

 

[outhouse]

Knowledge does not surpass belief--rather, it is inherent of belief.

Sure it does. Simply put you don't say you believe the answer is 2 when adding 1 + 1. YOU state you know it is 2 because there is no belief.


Many people run to philosophy in debates like this where they circle around any meaning to get any result they wish.

You don't believe your parents name is what ever it is, you know what it is.

Knowledge is justified and true belief.

Wrong. Because plato implied such over 2000 years ago does not mean it stands.

Look at the definition of knowledge, no where does it imply belief outside philosophical debates, that are factually not settled on the definition you managed to provide


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/knowledge

1.
acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition:
knowledge of many things.

2.
familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning:
A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.

3.
acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report:
a knowledge of human nature.

4.
the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.

5.
awareness, as of a fact or circumstance:
He had knowledge of her good fortune.

6.
something that is or may be known; information:
He sought knowledge of her activities.

7.
the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.



Notice how nowhere in any part of the standard definition does it say belief is defined as knowledge?

 

[outhouse]

Thus, knowledge requires belief.

Your wrong and your source does not settle anything.

Using unsettled philosophy to prove a point is pseudoscience

 

[outhouse]

If a "lack" exists, then there is something that is lacked.

You put yourself in a non sequitur corner here.

There is no belief if it is lacking, which also means missing

 

[outhouse]

Belief is just taking something to be the case or acceptance of its truth.

No it is not acceptance of truth, it would have evolved into knowledge at that point. Belief is simply thinking something is the way it is, without knowledge of the truth by definition.

Your first part is correct, belief is assumption, and knowledge is not.

Thus, knowledge requires belief.

Not at all. I don't believe in 2 in any sense. I don't believe in facts.

 

[Curious George]

No it is not acceptance of truth, it would have evolved into knowledge at that point. Belief is simply thinking something is the way it is, without knowledge of the truth by definition.

Your first part is correct, belief is assumption, and knowledge is not.




Not at all. I don't believe in 2 in any sense. I don't believe in facts.

It's sourced. Link below it says the same. Knowledge is a type of belief. You have yet to source anything that says different. Your "not..., or not merely" quote does not suggest that knowledge is not belief. It is making a point about the gettier problems with JTB theory. Nothing more.

 

[outhouse]

It's sourced. Link below it says the same

Sourced does not mean it is so

It means some ancient dude had an opinion.


I have already posted credible sources stating it is not settled. But you have beiger issues not being able to refute why the REAL definition in a dictionary FAILS to mention belief.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/knowledge

1.
acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition:
knowledge of many things.

2.
familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning:
A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.

3.
acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report:
a knowledge of human nature.

4.
the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.

5.
awareness, as of a fact or circumstance:
He had knowledge of her good fortune.

6.
something that is or may be known; information:
He sought knowledge of her activities.

7.
the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.



Notice how nowhere in any part of the standard definition does it say belief is defined as knowledge?

 

[outhouse]

Belief is assumption, and knowledge is not.

 

[Curious George]

Sourced does not mean it is so

It means some ancient dude had an opinion.


I have already posted credible sources stating it is not settled. But you have beiger issues not being able to refute why the REAL definition in a dictionary FAILS to mention belief.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/knowledge

1.
acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition:
knowledge of many things.

2.
familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning:
A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.

3.
acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report:
a knowledge of human nature.

4.
the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.

5.
awareness, as of a fact or circumstance:
He had knowledge of her good fortune.

6.
something that is or may be known; information:
He sought knowledge of her activities.

7.
the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.



Notice how nowhere in any part of the standard definition does it say belief is defined as knowledge?

Dictionary is for the layman, not the philosopher, it uses the term as is commonly used in everyday speech, not in relevant opinion, correct usage, or necessarily well thought-out usage.

 

[Curious George]

Belief is assumption, and knowledge is not.

Certainly belief can be an assumption. But it is not merely an assumption.

 

[leibowde84]

We are discussing what an 7 year old means when they state "I do not believe in God"

I am saying this is indicative of a belief that they at least believe the proposition God exists is false (and likely means that they believe God doesn't exist, but I did not go that far to placate those who might insist upon the boy being a weak explicit atheist)

You are suggesting that the 7 year old was trying to express some nuanced semantic position.

All in all, I am claiming no belief either way, which seems more likely for a child.

 

[outhouse]

Dictionary is for the layman, not the philosopher,

You not a philosopher, and your having trouble accepting the current definition as written in a dictionary, as you try and pervert the meaning to suit your own personal needs going beyond the definition.

 

[outhouse]

Certainly belief can be an assumption. But it is not merely an assumption.

If it was not an assumption it would then be called knowledge

 

[outhouse]

it uses the term as is commonly used in everyday speech, not in relevant opinion, correct usage, or necessarily well thought-out usage.

Im sorry but you don't have the credibility in any shape or form, to argue a definition in a dictionary.

Your admitting to not following academia in this aspect..