Knowledge

[Arachna]

So it really is a problem then . <3

Edmund Gettier presented two effective counterexamples to the JTB analysis.

I found the second one. I ll post the quote for all the ones who wish to join in this debate but have trouble finding data about it.

1. Jones owns a Ford.

Suppose further Smith infers from (1) the following three disjunctions:

2. Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Boston.

3. Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona.

4. Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Brest-Litovsk.

Since (1) entails each of the propositions (2) through (4), and since Smith recognizes these entailments, he is justified in believing each of propositions (2)-(4).

Now suppose that, by sheer coincidence, Brown is indeed in Barcelona.

Given these assumptions, we may say that Smith, when he believes (3), holds a justified true belief.

However, is Smith's belief an instance of knowledge?

Since Smith has no evidence whatever as to Brown's whereabouts, and so believes what is true only because of luck, the answer would have to be ‘no’.

Consequently, the three conditions of the JTB account — truth, belief, and justification — are not sufficient for knowledge.

How must the analysis of knowledge be modified to make it immune to cases like the one we just considered?

This is what is commonly referred to as the "Gettier problem".

Epistemologists who think that the JTB approach is basically on the right track must choose between two different strategies for solving the Gettier problem.

The first is to strengthen the justification condition.
This was attempted by Roderick Chisholm.

The second strategy is to search for a suitable further condition, a condition that would, so to speak, "degettierize" justified true belief.

 

[Kaze Araki]

This reality affect religious people the most, since by having a religion (implying standard definition for mainstream religion here), one is automatically convinced that knowledge is attainable - in this instance; metaphysical knowledge. I personally am very much intrigued to know in regard to how they are going to defend it.

 

[Arachna]

Quite interesting to think about.
Hm.
I couldn't really find any other religion that doesn't have limitations on knowledge ,except Buddhism.

To the Buddhist knowledge should be obtained through one’s own reasoning and experience.

This is the same method as employed by modern science, except that Buddhism expands this to a study of one’s own mind, as well as a study of the world of sight and sound.

Science contradicts most major religions, so those who follow them have to limit their "knowledge" to remain religious.

Here is what one of the modern,physics, scientist said about it :

Heuer: At the edge of physics, it becomes linked to philosophy.

But in the case of physics, it is really not a question of “believing” but of deducing something from a larger theoretical framework or from experimental data.

Once you can prove something, it is no longer a question of philosophy or belifs ,but pure attainable facts.

the interplay between theory and experiment is very interesting.

Sometimes the theory is indeed ahead of the experiment and we must later try to find proof for the validity of the theory through data analysis.

But when the analysis yields results that could not be expected from the theory, then it must follow the experiment and devise new formulas to explain our observations.

Research necessarily charts new territory, otherwise it would not be very interesting.

I like the fact that people think critically about our research, and I understand that they might have fears.

It is a question what you define as full proof.

If all experimental evidence points to a given fact, that you can say that within certain boundary conditions the theory is correct.

I think it is the same with religious belifs.

 

[Kaze Araki]

I disagree.
Scientific believe and religious believe are diametrically opposed.
The first is falsifiable, while the latter aren't.
Therefore the first makes no claim that knowledge is attainable, but the latter do assert as such.

 

[-lexus-]

If science doesnt believe that knowledge is attainable, then why does it bother? All it would ever do then is making reasonable guesses and hope that its right, without ever knowing or finding out that its right and that it was right for the right reasons. Science is at best more humiliate about it, in the sense that they do not have developed some all encompassing answer for every problem and that they keep it in the back of their heads that they might be wrong about certain things. But science in the end is just as much about knowledge as religion, just in different fields.

 

[Kaze Araki]

Read Hawking's "The Grand Design" to answer your question.

 

[-lexus-]

And read Dawkins 'The God Delusion' to see that science just as much believes in attaining knowledge as religion.

We could both start quoting individual scientists on what they believe science is about and its limitations, or we could just agree that it kind of depends on the individual.

 

[Kaze Araki]

Sorry, I'm not delusional, and I very much doubt Dawkins ever assert what you claim.
Cite me his statement specifically.

 

[-lexus-]

Sorry, I'm not delusional, and I very much doubt Dawkins ever assert what you claim.
Cite me his statement specifically.

I never said youre delusional.

And well read the book. Especially the intro. He responds to being attacked for being just as extremist in his views on religion as fundamentalist Christians are extreme in their views on evolution/science. He basically responds with that he is passionate and that he is passionate about it because he is right and they are wrong, making them extremists. And that tone goes on in the rest of the book. Dawkins is right, because science is right, and religion is based on fairy tales and vague assertions from some old book, making it bullshit.

Really, if scientists, and to that extend, science, doesnt believe that what they know is true, but merely based on educated guesses with no way to discover if they are right, their wouldnt be any Dawkins like people. They wouldnt think of themselves as right compared to religion. They wouldnt assert that what they found out is the truth. They wouldnt assert anything because they cant know it to be true or false.


As for what Hawkings said. Im sure you could cite his specific claim about this if you wanted too. But keep in mind that Hawkings is just one guy, and not the personification of science as a whole.

 

[Arachna]

<.< Eh..

I feel a bit embarrassed to ask.

While you are in the midst of a pleasant bickering duo. <3 But I have a question.

Can the beliefs that religions have, also be seen as limited quest for knowledge? That is, the search for facts to support their beliefs?

I know that you are gonna say that there is no proof there for there is no knowledge in their claims.
And that religious books are just fairy tails. Etc. But if there is a possibility,that something in those books is true. Then it would mean it is a fact. And there for it is also knowledge?

If you can see,where i am going with this, it would be vastly appreciated.

 

[Kaze Araki]

I never said youre delusional.

And well read the book. Especially the intro. He responds to being attacked for being just as extremist in his views on religion as fundamentalist Christians are extreme in their views on evolution/science. He basically responds with that he is passionate and that he is passionate about it because he is right and they are wrong, making them extremists. And that tone goes on in the rest of the book. Dawkins is right, because science is right, and religion is based on fairy tales and vague assertions from some old book, making it bullshit.

Really, if scientists, and to that extend, science, doesnt believe that what they know is true, but merely based on educated guesses with no way to discover if they are right, their wouldnt be any Dawkins like people. They wouldnt think of themselves as right compared to religion. They wouldnt assert that what they found out is the truth. They wouldnt assert anything because they cant know it to be true or false.


As for what Hawkings said. Im sure you could cite his specific claim about this if you wanted too. But keep in mind that Hawkings is just one guy, and not the personification of science as a whole.

Study the philosophy of science, and then come back to me.

<.< Eh..

I feel a bit embarrassed to ask.

While you are in the midst of a pleasant bickering duo. <3 But I have a question.

Can the beliefs that religions have, also be seen as limited quest for knowledge? That is, the search for facts to support their beliefs?

I know that you are gonna say that there is no proof there for there is no knowledge in their claims.
And that religious books are just fairy tails. Etc. But if there is a possibility,that something in those books is true. Then it would mean it is a fact. And there for it is also knowledge?

If you can see,where i am going with this, it would be vastly appreciated.

To answer your question, I need you to answer my question first; what is "fact"?

 

[Arachna]

To answer your question, I need you to answer my question first; what is "fact"?

Fact is an information/deed that was observed/seen/made and it can be confirmed or validated to such an extent that it is considered as a 100% real proof.
it can also be constructed logically from other proven facts.
<.<

You are scary. :cute:

 

[-lexus-]

Study the philosophy of science, and then come back to me.

Positivism. Neo Positivism. Post positivism. They all pretty much state that knowledge can be derived from science and its methods.

 

[Kaze Araki]

Positivism. Neo Positivism. Post positivism. They all pretty much state that knowledge can be derived from science and its methods.

Postpositivism as a correction of Positivism assert no such thing. Indeed, the idea of Falsifiability (as proposed by Popper) imply that all "human knowledge" are nothing more but conjectures. Religion on the other hand assert their dogmas as the absolute truth, therefore inherently unfalsifiable and completely the opposite of Science. Equating Science with Religion when it comes to "knowledge" is just absurd, and I very much doubt Dawkins are unaware of this.

Fact is an information/deed that was observed/seen/made and it can be confirmed or validated to such an extent that it is considered as a 100% real proof.
it can also be constructed logically from other proven facts.
<.<

You are scary. :cute:

In short; facts is consistence result derived from empirical observation. Now, going back to the original question;

Can the beliefs that religions have, also be seen as limited quest for knowledge? That is, the search for facts to support their beliefs?

I tend to see Religion as Ideology instead of a search for facts, therefore explains their cherry picking of facts. Take the virgin birth of Jesus for example, based upon your definition of facts, how do Christians justify this believe empirically? They can't, they can only rely on faith. But now here's the fundamental tricky question; does faith equal to knowledge?

 

[Arachna]

I tend to see Religion as Ideology instead of a search for facts, therefore explains their cherry picking of facts. Take the virgin birth of Jesus for example, based upon your definition of facts, how do Christians justify this believe empirically? They can't, they can only rely on faith. But now here's the fundamental tricky question; does faith equal to knowledge?

Well i see your point there.

And Christians justify it by saying it is a "dogma".
One who accepts an unscientific explanation is dogmatic; the account is regarded as being absolutely true and not capable of improvement.
An unscientific explanation is taken simply as true, revealed from on high, perhaps, or because 'everyone knows it is so and unscientific belief is held independently of anything we should regard as evidence in its favor.

Empirical evidence is obtained by means of observation and sense experience.
Where as scientific evidence goes further by employing such methods as the hypothetico-deductive and tests for falsification.

There are many things rational people believe without scientific evidence.

This fundamental tricky question really is quite tricky.


The evidentialist will likely argue justified belief does not require evidence if it is properly basic or derived from other justified belief. Since Christian faith at its foundation is not derived from other beliefs, and according to the freethinker is not supported by evidence, then it must be either properly basic or unjustified.

A properly basic belief is one that is self-evident, evident to the senses or incorrigible.
It is known in an immediate way or where one cannot be mistaken.

Hm..i have to think about it more.
I ll get back to you on this one. =)

 

[-lexus-]

Postpositivism as a correction of Positivism assert no such thing. Indeed, the idea of Falsifiability (as proposed by Popper) imply that all "human knowledge" are nothing more but conjectures. Religion on the other hand assert their dogmas as the absolute truth, therefore inherently unfalsifiable and completely the opposite of Science. Equating Science with Religion when it comes to "knowledge" is just absurd, and I very much doubt Dawkins are unaware of this.

Popper criticized the Neo-Positivists for the scientific methods they favored and in particular their reliance on inductive reasoning. Popper introduced the idea of Falsifiability and deductive reasoning as things scientists should do. So instead of making generalized statements out of a bit of data, he said that you should make a general statement and then test it against the data you have. His idea of falsifiability was a way of ensuring the science can go forward. Basically, every bit of data that supports a certain theory becomes instantly worthless the moment you get a piece of data that doesnt fit in and requires you to come up with a new theory.

He is not saying that knowledge cannot be attained through science. Quite the opposite, he says it is possible to get knowledge through science with the right methods. Falsifiability is just one such method to weed out all the false knowledge until you get to a point were your theory simply accounts for all the evidence there is.

Of course there is a huge difference between science and religion and I never said you should equate them in their methods, I said that in the end both science and religion believe in Knowledge and men's ability to get it. Only religion thinks it already has it, while science is not so sure about it and keeps questioning it until they are.