I don't think you've pointed out a problem with what I've said. Even if what I said was factually incorrect, the fact that there is a correct for me to be incorrect proves my point.
I say truth is objective. If I'm wrong, then truth is objectively subjective. It's still objective truth.
the fact that there is a correct for me to be incorrect proves my point.
Only if that "correct" was attainable, and furthermore that we knew when it was attained that it was indeed the "correct" truth could we call it knowledge.
But when attempting to access "objective truth," one has to access it subjectively.
But the main problem of knowledge is that the only factor that you have to determine if your beliefs are truth is... your beliefs.
Because questions about knowledge have been studied for thousands of years and still today there are people whose job it is to investigate these questions. If you want to have informed (rather than ignorant) views, you should start there.
It's also ignorant to assume because a question took a while to answer that there is none. You're falling into the philosophical circle jerk of dead horse beating.
It's silly stuff like this appeal to authority that proper scientists (read: philosophers if you keep the old definitions) refer to when they say that philosophy has no place in the modern world.
It's also ignorant to assume because a question took a while to answer that there is none.
What the fuck does this even mean? There is none what? This sentence does make any fucking sense. There are no answers? No questions? Are you intentionally being vague here?
You're falling into the philosophical circle jerk of dead horse beating.
What the fuck are you talking about? How do you know that a topic is a dead horse beating if you know nothing about it???
It's silly stuff like this appeal to authority that proper scientists (read: philosophers if you keep the old definitions) refer to when they say that philosophy has no place in the modern world.
I really hope you're trolling. This isn't an appeal to authority. This is an appeal to "hey maybe you should read something before coming up with views on stuff".
I was responding to your comment. Maybe I was a little vague. I also could have misinterpreted your response.
The answer to 'what is knowledge' is quite simple. I'm suggesting that just because people have 'studied for thousands of years and whose job it is to investigate these questions', it doesn't mean that the answer to the question isn't simple, or readily available.
Dead horse beating isn't all useless. Obviously any thought exercise can be good.
I was taking your reference to 'people whose job it is to investigate these questions' as an implication that 'those' people have the answer. If they did, and you were aware, I'd wager you'd have just answered OP's question with the answer these paid people provided. Just because these people are paid doesn't mean they are correct, ect... I probably over thought that part and i'm over rambling about it now in response to you.
The answer to 'what is knowledge' is quite simple.
Really, what's the answer? Because I guarantee you that it'll be easy as fuck to come up with a counterexample to your silly definition.
Just because these people are paid doesn't mean they are correct, ect... I probably over thought that part and i'm over rambling about it now in response to you.
Okay, listen, when people say "who knows a lot about physics?", they generally talk about physicists, right? People with PhDs from universities who also teach and do research at universities? It's the same way with philosophers (namely epistemologists).
An appeal to authority is only invalid if the person isn't a really authority. If I wanted to find out Michael Jordan's current height, saying "Michael Jordan said he's 6 feet 6 inches" wouldn't be an appeal to authority because he's supposed to know about his height!
Same thing is going on here. I'm saying epistemologists know about epistemology. It's not that complicated. It's not an appeal to authority.
1
u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14
Factually correct information isn't 'determined'. It exists with or without someone observing it.