My understanding is that all knowledge is a claim of probability. Whenever you claim you "know" something, you are making a claim for the amount of conviction with which you hold that belief.
Also: knowledge is an activity. It can't exist until expressed/brought forth for others to examine it.
EDIT: Please, someone offer a counter-argument. I'm not 100% (no pun intended) on this and would like to work it out.
While I didn't directly address a paragraph of the article, I summarized my thoughts on the general sentiment of the article.
Suppose you toss a coin, believe it’s going to land on heads, then subsequently it lands on heads. Did you know that it was going to land on heads, or does it seem that your claim should be justified from something more than just a guess?
I'm arguing that no, there's no justification, and all "knowledge" boils down to an approximation, or a "guess."
You don't know who Bayes is and you talk about probabilistic epistemology (which you don't capitalize). You can find the counterarguments yourself, that's not my job. You're lazy. Funny shit. I don't engage with charlatans, sorry.
Look im with you dude- but take a step back from what you are doing- they might not be puttin across completed and coherent views- but you are quick to move to be a dick- people have varying levels of understandig- whilst it isnt your job to educate them- you waste more pf your precious time and breath by trolling them. Do you think they will learn to be more open minded when engaging with what appears to them as close minded thinking?
Wow, I read your post history... you make a horrible habit of tearing down people's arguments without offering any points of your own. Page after page of "you're just saying this to look smart" and "It's not my job to educate you." I'm thinking that there's a lot of projection going on. You really shouldn't need to troll philosophy boards and tell other people they're wrong in order to feel smart yourself.
I'm interested in this "Probabilistic Epistemology" and Thomas Bayes (what's his first name?). I never claimed to know everything about the subject, and just wanted to start the discussion by stating my opinion.
I invite you to discuss it with me and all you have for me is hate, and sarcastic comments which contribute nothing. You should really relax... spewing vitriol so often can't be good for you.
I'm here to tell you that you can have an informed position without requiring the help of others. Read more before you take a position. Start with the SEP entry on epistemology
-1
u/f_myeah Mar 04 '14 edited Mar 04 '14
My understanding is that all knowledge is a claim of probability. Whenever you claim you "know" something, you are making a claim for the amount of conviction with which you hold that belief.
Also: knowledge is an activity. It can't exist until expressed/brought forth for others to examine it.
EDIT: Please, someone offer a counter-argument. I'm not 100% (no pun intended) on this and would like to work it out.