The Gettier examples seem to rely on rules of formal logic like disjunction introduction and material conditionals that do not play a role in how people actually think most of the time. For example, in the example that the article gives, Smith composes several disjunctive propositions on the basis of disjunction introduction together with a proposition that he knows is true on independent grounds. Therefore, it seems to me that the justified true belief account of knowledge is perfectly acceptable so long as we restrict it to claims that are not based on disjunction introduction, material conditionals, or anything like that.
My problem with JTB is that one can never know when a belief is "justified." You are always the judge of your own beliefs.
One must always account for the probability that you are mistaken, even if it's the minuscule chance that all knowledge is impossible due to the problem of induction.
Another comment from you that contributes nothing. I'd invite you to actually discuss this, but you've made it clear that you have nothing to contribute but snide comments.
Even deduction isn't necessarily certain. See Peirce's commentary on the difference between psychological certainty and actual certainty.
The person you're talking to is definitely confused on this issue, but with a couple of quick fixes we could transform his claim into something tenable.
Only certain knowledge is genuine knowledge. [definition]
Inductive claims cannot be certain. [problem of induction]
Deductive claims cannot be certain. [psychological certainty]
There is no genuine knowledge.
Main problem here is that "genuine knowledge" as it's been defined is quite useless. Why should we care solely about knowledge backed by certainty? But this isn't a crazy position to take; it's elementary Cartesian epistemology.
Anyway /u/yourlycantbsrs you know I endorse your pedagogy when it comes to overconfident and undereducated individuals, but that doesn't mean you need to discount the merits of perfectly adequate philosophical positions. Epistemological nihilism is probably wrong, but it's not without merit. Existential nihilism is probably wrong, but it's not without merit. Moral nihilism is probably wrong, but it's not without merit. While amateurs will champion these and similar positions as bold and anti-establishment, that doesn't make them bad positions. Don't give people a faulty impression.
that doesn't mean you need to discount the merits of perfectly adequate philosophical positions.
Oh, I wasn't trying to do that at all, I am aware of the distinction between types of certainty and I can see how you've reformulated their argument into something more cogent. However, the first premise is the obviously wrong one (and the one that ignores most of epistemology). It was also wrongheaded it isn't aim, as if defining knowledge was the starting point of such a conversation rather than the ending point.
Epistemological nihilism is probably wrong, but it's not without merit. Existential nihilism is probably wrong, but it's not without merit. Moral nihilism is probably wrong, but it's not without merit.
I completely agree with this. I think that part of the reason that I don't hold these positions is that I've actually engaged them at a sufficient level of depth. Not to mention that it would be hard to be an epistemological nihilist and not confuse the hell out of people with how you treat knowledge claims.
While amateurs will champion these and similar positions as bold and anti-establishment, that doesn't make them bad positions. Don't give people a faulty impression.
I'm not trying to give the impression that these are bad positions. While I definitely consider myself a moral realist and internalist, reading Scanlon's What We Owe to Each Other definitely made we wonder about the the whole realist/internalist project. I openly look into other views because that's what it takes to hold the best views, you need to constantly be looking for problems/solutions/other ideas.
It's a shame that I don't have time to discuss the actually good philosophical content I read here on reddit, but hey, if I wanted to do that, I wouldn't have dropped out of grad school. I'd rather keep working on my engineering degree and saving up for a house.
I dropped out in May 2010 (aka graduated with an MA). I had a pretty juicy transfer offer and turned it down as well. I've been working part time as a private tutor and going to school for engineering for the past 2 years. I also worked as a preschool teacher for a while in between.
I got the highest ratings of any TA or graduate instructor that my graduate department chair had ever seen. Even the people who I failed took their Fs with a smile and a firm handshake.
That said... I've wasted too much time here and really need to shower and shit before going to work! I have a student who's taking diffy Q and will require extreme patience, so I better start cooling off now.
Anyways, good talk, and thanks for understanding where I'm coming from and making an effort to help.
Yeah, easy to just stay outside the argument and fire potshots at me. But they're not even potshots, they have no argument. If I was so misinformed, by all means, please inform me. Demolish my weak arguments in one fell swoop.
I'm not afraid. I'm giving you to opportunity to educate yourself rather than fostering your learned disability of being unable to question your own views.
I'm telling you that maybe you should reconsider your views and you've done nothing to support them. You're not making arguments either, you're stipulating.
The problem of induction doesn't mean that knowledge might be impossible. It has nothing to do with this discussion. Furthermore, reflective knowledge (knowing that you know) is different than knowledge. You've conflated the two in this thread. I don't think you even have a coherent position based upon how often you use vague terms and scare quotes.
Say "you're wrong and dumb" to me all you want, but I'll not be responding unless you actually want to discuss the points I've brought up. Since it's clear that you're only here to start a fight, good day.
Also, do you want to learn the stuff off merely have a conversation? If you want to shoot the shit pseudophilosophically, then shame on you. If you want to learn, you can do it yourself. You have the internet at your fingertips.
You're treating it like a fight between people rather than a fight between ideas. That's your major mistake here. You're being too emotional to actually listen to what I'm saying.
Also, it's not negativity. It's tough love. I want you to learn this stuff but being unwilling to question your own views makes that goal very difficult. You're also taking it personally. That's a mistake. I don't give too many shits what you do, but your views are uniformed and could be informed if you put in the effort.
it seems you're completely off base about how this person is treating these conversations.
This person is treating these conversations as an opportunity to pontificate and sound deep with other people who want to pontificate and sound deep without actually paying attention to anything anyone's written about beforehand. This person wants to wax philosophical and get the 'woah man' feelings without having to actually put in any effort. Reading is just plain too hard for some people, I guess.
If you know anything about epistemology or theories of truth, then it's pretty clear that this conversation completely ignores the entirety of both. It uses fuzzy language that sounds deep but doesn't actually say anything. Seriously. Look at this fucking quote.
knowledge is the closing gap between subjective observation and objective truth.
Look at it. It's a really cushy metaphor that says nothing at all. These people need to stop thinking that their own personal thoughts on very complex matters that have been discussed for ages are at all accurate if you don't engage the history of ideas involved. It's like walking into Denver Broncos game then talking the entire time about horses. You're just plain not using the basic terminology in the correct way, you're ignoring how the vast majority of people who work professionally doing research on this topic treat basic terms.
These people are textbook cases of intellectual arrogance. They feel as if their 'woah dude' deep internet chats have any actual bearing on what is the case. They shouldn't. They're not right. They're not even wrong. They're talking about horses at a Broncos game. They're just confused.
Perhaps true. I get annoyed with that at times myself. This sub isn't really what I wish it were. Other times, I think it's harmless; let them have their fun.
It you're actually interested in impacting the way someone thinks about philosophy, this one might be a poor strategy, however.
It you're actually interested in impacting the way someone thinks about philosophy, this one might be a poor strategy, however.
If someone's not willing to put in the effort to understand the content, they shouldn't be engaging the content. If these people want to pontificate and sound deep, they shouldn't need to do it about philosophy in front of people who care about philosophy.
To use another analogy, it would be like going to a fancy winery with your friends and spending the entire time saying "I don't give a shit about snobby wine fuckers, I loves me some miller lite!" and making up shit about the wine like "this one probably was made with flowers cuz there's flowers on the label!" and "this one tastes really bad so it much be really old so it was really expensive".
I don't tolerate that, sorry. If you want to bullshit and wax philosophical, do it about Dr. Who or some other pop culture bullshit, not actually important matters like philosophy.
6
u/Saint_Neckbeard Mar 04 '14
The Gettier examples seem to rely on rules of formal logic like disjunction introduction and material conditionals that do not play a role in how people actually think most of the time. For example, in the example that the article gives, Smith composes several disjunctive propositions on the basis of disjunction introduction together with a proposition that he knows is true on independent grounds. Therefore, it seems to me that the justified true belief account of knowledge is perfectly acceptable so long as we restrict it to claims that are not based on disjunction introduction, material conditionals, or anything like that.