As did I.
You place words in my mouth I never stated, by taking a definition out of context.
A belief is not something learned however. While knowledge is factually something learned.
Most knowledge is learned.
I refuse to get into details of epistemology with you, when you refuse common definitions.
George context is key here, and you failed to bring sources in context that show belief is fact and or knowledge. Only one ancient outdated definition that never settled anything in the first place.
You can try to spin it anyway you want. I used Plato, gettier, Stanford.edu, and turri, throughout the conversation. Those are credible sources. You can comb through it again or perhaps you weren't paying attention. I honestly thought you might just be screwing with me at times.
You write plenty of intelligent posts, I certainly respect your opinion, I am just glad shad came to help discuss. Our conversation was not going anywhere, and fast!
Lol, if common definitions are dictionary definitions, yes I refuse them. Especially when we are talking about propositional logic.
It is not uncommon in epistemology to refer to knowledge as belief. I do not think my posts were out in left field (I understand you might). But if you don't explain your position, or give me substance I cannot understand. I understand that you do not want to discuss epistemology with me because you believe I refuse "common" definitions, but perhaps if you try it wont be as bad as you think. Once I can understand your position, I will just discuss which position is better.
I know you are certainly an advocate of the implicit and weak explicit atheist. I think you might have observed that I disagree with these "definitions" in some threads. But at least I understand these definitions. I really had no idea what you were trying to say with knowledge. Originally, I thought you were trying to distinguish the two as might be done in a undergraduate or even high school writing class. Wherein it is important that the kids do not just write "beliefs" but rely on research an "facts."
I thought you were trying to imply that all I had said amounted to "belief" because it was not sourced as one would a research paper. Then for a brief moment I thought, alright he just wants me to source it. Then you started attacking the justified true belief and the modification. I thought, you were just screwing with me. Then as we continued, I simply could not figure out your point.
Hopefully you understand that through your own reading, in spite of your belief of my ineptitude of sourcing or even in general, that people besides me really do think of propositional knowledge as belief. Hopefully, through your research, you can understand why.
This was my struggle with your position. And because I hold you in high esteem, I assume you could have remedied this at any moment. Why you did not, I was not sure. I now gather that you were just disturbed by my lack of "sources" and refusal to use them.
Were I writing you a paper, I would gladly cite most everything. But I am typing on my phone, and responding off the cuff. I am no fool. I may not be Socrates as you pointed out, but my logic is sound most of the time. When it is not, I can usually be convinced of my error. All you need is to take the time to do so.
Please keep in mind we are not writing research papers. And while I understand the importance of standing on the shoulders of giants, I also enjoy working through my own thoughts. If you want me to read something, I will gladly read it. If you want me to consider something I will gladly consider it. I cannot do so when you write esoteric things like "non sequitur" (though I will have you know that each time you did so I went back and scoured my posts for premises and conclusion to find out which conclusion did not follow. I was extremely dismayed to find that many times the phrase non-sequitur was not referring to any conclusions.
The most humorous thing I find in this thread is that while dealing with nuanced points of belief or non belief all of this discussion might make sense. However, this thread is dealing with a seven year old. I don't know how precocious you were at seven, but when I asserted I did not believe in Santa, I meant Santa is not real. I can see no reason to think this kid is not making this point about God.
However, I did not even go that far in my assessment. I left the kid as a weak explicit atheist. And still we have disagreement.
It seems interesting that so many find this offensive. But c'est la vie. I had a good discussion about knowledge and belief, and for that I thank you,
@Shad , and
@Willamena. If a couple others joined in to tell me how crazy I sounded, it might have even been more fun, if you can imagine that.
And while I leave this conversation still thinking of knowledge as belief, I THINK I understand your perspective finally.
Cheers.
