6 ms·

I'm not sure I see the big deal. Justification is on a scale of 0 to 1, and at 1 you are onmiscient. We live in a complicated world; no one has time to be God s

I'm not sure I see the big deal. Justification is on a scale of 0 to 1, and at 1 you are onmiscient. We live in a complicated world; no one has time to be God so you just accept your 0.5 JTB and move on. Or for the belief part, well, "it's not a lie if you believe it". And as for the true bit, let's assume that there really is a cow, but before you can call someone over to verify your JTB, an alien abducts the cow and leaves a crop circle. Now all anyone sees is a paper-mache cow so you appear the fool but did have a true JTB - Schroedinger's JTB. Does it really matter unless you can convince others of that? On the flip side, even if the knowledge is wrong, if everyone agrees it is true, does it even matter? JTB only exist to highlight bad assumptions, like being on the wrong side of a branch predictor. If you have a 0.9 JTB but get the right answer 0.1 times and don't update you assumptions, then you have a problem. One statue in a field? Not a big deal! * * Unless it's a murder investigation and you're Sherlock Holmes (a truly powerful branch predictor).

orbisvicis 2y ago
edit: Then there's the whole "what is a cow" thing. Like if you you stuffed a cow carcass with a robot and no one could tell the difference, would that still be a cow? Or what if you came across a horrifying cow-horse hybrid, what would you call that? Or if the cow in question had a unique mutation possessed by no other cow - does it still fit the cow archetype? For example, what if the cow couldn't produce milk? Or was created in lab? Which features are required to inherit cow-ness? This is an ambiguity covered by language, too. For example, "cow" is a pejorative not necessarily referring to a bovine animal. edit: And also the whole "is knowledge finite or infinite?". Is there ever a point at which we can explain everything, science ends and we can rest on our laurels? What then? Will we spend our time explaining hypotheticals that don't exist? Pure theoretical math? Or can that end too?
- yldedly 2y ago
  You've called J and T into question, so let's do B as well. Physicists know that QM and relativity can't be true, so it's fair to say that they don't believe in these theories, in a naive sense at least. In general anyone who takes Box' maxim that all models are wrong (but some are useful) to heart, doesn't fully believe in any straightforward sense. But clearly we'd say physicists do have knowledge.
  - Maxatar 2y ago
    Sure we'd say physicists have knowledge of quantum mechanics and general relativity. And we can also say physicists have knowledge of how to make predictions using quantum mechanics and general relativity. In this sense, general relativity is no more wrong than a hammer is wrong. Relativity is simply a tool that a person can use to make predictions. Strictly speaking then relativity is not itself right or wrong, rather it's the person who uses relativity to predict things who can be right or wrong. If a person uses general relativity incorrectly, which can be done by applying it to an area where it's not able to make predictions such as in the quantum domain, then it's the person who uses relativity as a tool who is wrong, not relativity itself. As a matter of linguistic convenience, it's easier to say that relativity (or theory X) is right means that people who use relativity to make predictions make correct predictions as opposed to relativity itself being correct or incorrect.
    - yldedly 2y ago
      My point is that QM and GR make very different claims about what exists. Perhaps it's possible to unify the descriptions. But more likely there will be a new theory with a completely different description of reality. On small scales, GR and Newtonian mechanics make almost the same predictions, but make completely different claims about what exists in reality. In my view, if the theories made equally good predictions, but still differed so fundamentally about what exists, then that matters, and implies that at least one of the theories is wrong. This is more a realist, than an instrumentalist position, which perhaps is what you subscribe to, but tbh instrumentalism always seemed indefensible to me.
      - Maxatar 2y ago
        If you are aware that "Maxatar's conjecture is that 1 + 1 = 5", then it's correct to say that you have knowledge about "Maxatar's conjecture", regardless of whether the conjecture is actually true or false. Your knowledge is that there is some conjecture that 1 + 1 = 5, not that it's actually true. In that sense, it's also correct to say that physicists have knowledge of relativity and quantum mechanics. I don't think any physicist including Einstein himself thinks that either theory is actually true, but they do have knowledge of both theories in much the same way that one has knowledge of "Maxatar's conjecture" and in much the way that you have knowledge of what the flat Earth proposition is, despite them being false.' It seems fairly radical to believe that instrumentalism is indefensible, or at least it's not clear what's indefensible about it. Were NASA physicists indefensible to use Newtonian mechanics to send a person to the moon because Newtonian mechanics are "wrong"? What exactly is indefensible? The observation that working physicists don't really care about whether a physical theory is "real" versus trying to come up with formal descriptions of observed phenomenon to make future predictions, regardless of whether those formal descriptions are "real"? If someone choses to engage in science by coming up with descriptions and models that are effective at communicating with other people observations, experimental results and whose results go on to allow for engineering advances in technology, are they doing something indefensible?
- pelorat 2y ago
  A robot in a cow carcass is not a cow, it's a "robot in a cow carcass". Someone might believe it's a cow because they lack crucial information but that's on them, doesn't change the fact. A cow-horse hybris is not a cow, it's a cow-horse hybrid. A cow with a genetic mutation is a cow with a genetic mutation. A cow created in a lab, perhaps even grown 100% by artificial means in-vitro is of course still a cow since it has the genetic makeup of a cow. The word cow is the word cow, its meaning can differ based on context. Things like this is why philosophers enjoy zero respect from me and why I'm an advocate for abolishing philosophy as a subject of study and also as a profession. Anyone can sit around thinking about things all day. If you spend money on studying it at a university you're getting scammed. Also knowledge is finite based purely on the assumption that the universe is finite. An observer outside the universe would be able to see all information in the universe and they would conclude; you can't pack infinite amounts of knowledge into a finite volume.
  - williamdclt 2y ago
    While I tend to also wave away philosophers as it always boil down to unclear definitions, I don’t think your argument answers the question at all. From “it has the genetic makeup of a cow”, you’re saying that what make a cow a cow is the genetic makeup. But then part of that ADN defines the cow? What can vary, by how much, before a cow stops being a cow? The point is that you can give any definition of “cow”, and we can imagine a thing that fits this definition yet you’d probably not consider a cow. It’s a reflection on how language relates to reality. Whether it’s an interesting point or not is left to the reader (I personally don’t think it is)
  - fenomas 2y ago
    I have this pet theory that Philosophy is kind of the Alternative Medicine of intellectual pursuits. In the same way that Alternative Medicine is doomed to consist of stuff that doesn't work (because anything proven to work becomes "Medicine"), Philosophy is made entirely of ideas that can't be validated through observation (because then they'd be Science), and also can't be rigorously formalized (because then they'd be Math). So for any given claim in Philosophy, if you could find a way to either (a) compare it to the world or (b) state it in unambiguous symbolic terms, then we'd stop calling it Philosophy. As a result it seems like the discipline is doomed to consist of unresolvable debates where none of the participants even define their terms quite the same way. Crazy idea, or no?
jumping_frog 2y ago
Biology makes it even more complicated. If you see your mother, you consider her to be imposter. While if you hear your mother's voice, you consider her to be real. Ramachandran Capgras Delusion Case https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xczrDAGfT4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xczrDAGfT4 > On the flip side, even if the knowledge is wrong, if everyone agrees it is true, does it even matter? This is case of consensus reality (an intuition pump I borrowed from somewhere). Consensus reality is also respected in Quantum realm. https://youtu.be/vSnq5Hs3_wI?t=753 https://youtu.be/vSnq5Hs3_wI?t=753 while individual particles remain in quantum superposition, their relative positions create a collective consensus in the entanglement network. This consensus defines the structure of macroscopic objects, making them appear well-defined to observers, including Schrödinger's cat.
ninetyninenine 2y ago
You're view is more inline with the philosophy of science which holds nothing an ever be justified. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Karl_Popper https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Karl_Popper read The problem of induction and demarcation: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Falsifiability https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Falsifiability Basically to some it all up because we aren't "omniscient" nothing can in actuallity ever be known.
- orbisvicis 2y ago
  Does the philosophy of science theorize anything about the end or limits of science and knowledge? I find that topic fascinating.
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    Yes. It says nothing can be proven in science and therefore reality as we know it. Things can only be falsified. But proof is the domain of mathematics… not of reality. Read the example of the black swan in the wiki link.
    - Maxatar 2y ago
      Seems contradictory but you can clarify. If a proposition can be falsified then that is knowledge that said proposition is false, and the negation is true. If nothing can be proven or known then it must follow that nothing can be falsified.
      - ninetyninenine 2y ago
        First you need intuition on what's going on. "All swans are white." This statement cannot be proven because it's not possible to observe all swans. There may be some swan in some hidden corner of the earth (or universe) that I did not see. If I see one black swan, I have falsified that statement. When you refer to "Not all swans are white" This statement can be proven true but why? This is because the original statement is a universal claim and the negation is a particular claim. The key distinction between universal claims and particular claims explains why you can "prove" the statement "Not all swans are white." Universal claims, like "All swans are white," attempt to generalize about all instances of a phenomenon. These kinds of statements can never be definitively proven true because they rely on inductive reasoning—no matter how many white swans are observed, there’s always the possibility that a counterexample (a non-white swan) will eventually be found. In contrast, particular claims are much more specific. The statement "Not all swans are white" is a particular claim because it is based on falsification—it only takes the observation of one black swan to disprove the universal claim "All swans are white." Since black swans have been observed, we can confidently say "Not all swans are white" is true. Popper's philosophy focuses on how universal claims can never be fully verified (proven true) through evidence, because future observations could always contradict them. However, universal claims can be falsified (proven false) with a single counterexample. Once a universal claim is falsified, it leads to a particular claim like "Not all swans are white," which can be verified by specific evidence. In essence, universal claims cannot be proven true because they generalize across all cases, while particular claims can be proven once a falsifying counterexample is found. That's why you can "prove" the statement "Not all swans are white"—it’s based on specific evidence from reality, in contrast to the uncertain generality of universal claims. To sum it up. When I say nothing can be proven and things can only be falsified... it is isomorphic to saying universal claims can't be proven, particular claims can.
ilbeeper 2y ago
Bayesian epistemology is indeed one of the developments in the field that avoids Gettie.
dogleash 2y ago
> I'm not sure I see the big deal. Tumblr is loginwalled now, so I can't find the good version of this, but I'll try and rip it: Philosophical questions like "what is knowledge" are hard precisely because everyone has an easy and obvious explanation that is sufficient to get them trough life. But, when forced to articulate that explanation, people often find them to be incomparable with other people's versions. Upon probing, the explanations don't hold at all. This is why some ancient Greek thought experiments can be mistaken for zen koans. Yeah, you can get by in life without finding a rigorous answer. The vast majority of human endeavor beyond subsistence can be filed under the category "I'm not sure I see the big deal." To say that about the question of knowledge and then vamp for 200 words is not refusing to engage. It's patching up a good-enough answer to suit a novel challenge and moving on. Which is precisely why these questions are hard, and why some people are so drawn to exploring for an answer.

orbisvicis 2y ago

edit: Then there's the whole "what is a cow" thing. Like if you you stuffed a cow carcass with a robot and no one could tell the difference, would that still be a cow? Or what if you came across a horrifying cow-horse hybrid, what would you call that? Or if the cow in question had a unique mutation possessed by no other cow - does it still fit the cow archetype? For example, what if the cow couldn't produce milk? Or was created in lab? Which features are required to inherit cow-ness? This is an ambiguity covered by language, too. For example, "cow" is a pejorative not necessarily referring to a bovine animal. edit: And also the whole "is knowledge finite or infinite?". Is there ever a point at which we can explain everything, science ends and we can rest on our laurels? What then? Will we spend our time explaining hypotheticals that don't exist? Pure theoretical math? Or can that end too?

yldedly 2y ago
You've called J and T into question, so let's do B as well. Physicists know that QM and relativity can't be true, so it's fair to say that they don't believe in these theories, in a naive sense at least. In general anyone who takes Box' maxim that all models are wrong (but some are useful) to heart, doesn't fully believe in any straightforward sense. But clearly we'd say physicists do have knowledge.
- Maxatar 2y ago
  Sure we'd say physicists have knowledge of quantum mechanics and general relativity. And we can also say physicists have knowledge of how to make predictions using quantum mechanics and general relativity. In this sense, general relativity is no more wrong than a hammer is wrong. Relativity is simply a tool that a person can use to make predictions. Strictly speaking then relativity is not itself right or wrong, rather it's the person who uses relativity to predict things who can be right or wrong. If a person uses general relativity incorrectly, which can be done by applying it to an area where it's not able to make predictions such as in the quantum domain, then it's the person who uses relativity as a tool who is wrong, not relativity itself. As a matter of linguistic convenience, it's easier to say that relativity (or theory X) is right means that people who use relativity to make predictions make correct predictions as opposed to relativity itself being correct or incorrect.
  - yldedly 2y ago
    My point is that QM and GR make very different claims about what exists. Perhaps it's possible to unify the descriptions. But more likely there will be a new theory with a completely different description of reality. On small scales, GR and Newtonian mechanics make almost the same predictions, but make completely different claims about what exists in reality. In my view, if the theories made equally good predictions, but still differed so fundamentally about what exists, then that matters, and implies that at least one of the theories is wrong. This is more a realist, than an instrumentalist position, which perhaps is what you subscribe to, but tbh instrumentalism always seemed indefensible to me.
    - Maxatar 2y ago
      If you are aware that "Maxatar's conjecture is that 1 + 1 = 5", then it's correct to say that you have knowledge about "Maxatar's conjecture", regardless of whether the conjecture is actually true or false. Your knowledge is that there is some conjecture that 1 + 1 = 5, not that it's actually true. In that sense, it's also correct to say that physicists have knowledge of relativity and quantum mechanics. I don't think any physicist including Einstein himself thinks that either theory is actually true, but they do have knowledge of both theories in much the same way that one has knowledge of "Maxatar's conjecture" and in much the way that you have knowledge of what the flat Earth proposition is, despite them being false.' It seems fairly radical to believe that instrumentalism is indefensible, or at least it's not clear what's indefensible about it. Were NASA physicists indefensible to use Newtonian mechanics to send a person to the moon because Newtonian mechanics are "wrong"? What exactly is indefensible? The observation that working physicists don't really care about whether a physical theory is "real" versus trying to come up with formal descriptions of observed phenomenon to make future predictions, regardless of whether those formal descriptions are "real"? If someone choses to engage in science by coming up with descriptions and models that are effective at communicating with other people observations, experimental results and whose results go on to allow for engineering advances in technology, are they doing something indefensible?
pelorat 2y ago
A robot in a cow carcass is not a cow, it's a "robot in a cow carcass". Someone might believe it's a cow because they lack crucial information but that's on them, doesn't change the fact. A cow-horse hybris is not a cow, it's a cow-horse hybrid. A cow with a genetic mutation is a cow with a genetic mutation. A cow created in a lab, perhaps even grown 100% by artificial means in-vitro is of course still a cow since it has the genetic makeup of a cow. The word cow is the word cow, its meaning can differ based on context. Things like this is why philosophers enjoy zero respect from me and why I'm an advocate for abolishing philosophy as a subject of study and also as a profession. Anyone can sit around thinking about things all day. If you spend money on studying it at a university you're getting scammed. Also knowledge is finite based purely on the assumption that the universe is finite. An observer outside the universe would be able to see all information in the universe and they would conclude; you can't pack infinite amounts of knowledge into a finite volume.
- williamdclt 2y ago
  While I tend to also wave away philosophers as it always boil down to unclear definitions, I don’t think your argument answers the question at all. From “it has the genetic makeup of a cow”, you’re saying that what make a cow a cow is the genetic makeup. But then part of that ADN defines the cow? What can vary, by how much, before a cow stops being a cow? The point is that you can give any definition of “cow”, and we can imagine a thing that fits this definition yet you’d probably not consider a cow. It’s a reflection on how language relates to reality. Whether it’s an interesting point or not is left to the reader (I personally don’t think it is)
- fenomas 2y ago
  I have this pet theory that Philosophy is kind of the Alternative Medicine of intellectual pursuits. In the same way that Alternative Medicine is doomed to consist of stuff that doesn't work (because anything proven to work becomes "Medicine"), Philosophy is made entirely of ideas that can't be validated through observation (because then they'd be Science), and also can't be rigorously formalized (because then they'd be Math). So for any given claim in Philosophy, if you could find a way to either (a) compare it to the world or (b) state it in unambiguous symbolic terms, then we'd stop calling it Philosophy. As a result it seems like the discipline is doomed to consist of unresolvable debates where none of the participants even define their terms quite the same way. Crazy idea, or no?

jumping_frog 2y ago

Biology makes it even more complicated. If you see your mother, you consider her to be imposter. While if you hear your mother's voice, you consider her to be real. Ramachandran Capgras Delusion Case https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xczrDAGfT4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xczrDAGfT4 > On the flip side, even if the knowledge is wrong, if everyone agrees it is true, does it even matter? This is case of consensus reality (an intuition pump I borrowed from somewhere). Consensus reality is also respected in Quantum realm. https://youtu.be/vSnq5Hs3_wI?t=753 https://youtu.be/vSnq5Hs3_wI?t=753 while individual particles remain in quantum superposition, their relative positions create a collective consensus in the entanglement network. This consensus defines the structure of macroscopic objects, making them appear well-defined to observers, including Schrödinger's cat.

ninetyninenine 2y ago

You're view is more inline with the philosophy of science which holds nothing an ever be justified. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Karl_Popper https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Karl_Popper read The problem of induction and demarcation: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Falsifiability https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Falsifiability Basically to some it all up because we aren't "omniscient" nothing can in actuallity ever be known.

orbisvicis 2y ago
Does the philosophy of science theorize anything about the end or limits of science and knowledge? I find that topic fascinating.
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  Yes. It says nothing can be proven in science and therefore reality as we know it. Things can only be falsified. But proof is the domain of mathematics… not of reality. Read the example of the black swan in the wiki link.
  - Maxatar 2y ago
    Seems contradictory but you can clarify. If a proposition can be falsified then that is knowledge that said proposition is false, and the negation is true. If nothing can be proven or known then it must follow that nothing can be falsified.
    - ninetyninenine 2y ago
      First you need intuition on what's going on. "All swans are white." This statement cannot be proven because it's not possible to observe all swans. There may be some swan in some hidden corner of the earth (or universe) that I did not see. If I see one black swan, I have falsified that statement. When you refer to "Not all swans are white" This statement can be proven true but why? This is because the original statement is a universal claim and the negation is a particular claim. The key distinction between universal claims and particular claims explains why you can "prove" the statement "Not all swans are white." Universal claims, like "All swans are white," attempt to generalize about all instances of a phenomenon. These kinds of statements can never be definitively proven true because they rely on inductive reasoning—no matter how many white swans are observed, there’s always the possibility that a counterexample (a non-white swan) will eventually be found. In contrast, particular claims are much more specific. The statement "Not all swans are white" is a particular claim because it is based on falsification—it only takes the observation of one black swan to disprove the universal claim "All swans are white." Since black swans have been observed, we can confidently say "Not all swans are white" is true. Popper's philosophy focuses on how universal claims can never be fully verified (proven true) through evidence, because future observations could always contradict them. However, universal claims can be falsified (proven false) with a single counterexample. Once a universal claim is falsified, it leads to a particular claim like "Not all swans are white," which can be verified by specific evidence. In essence, universal claims cannot be proven true because they generalize across all cases, while particular claims can be proven once a falsifying counterexample is found. That's why you can "prove" the statement "Not all swans are white"—it’s based on specific evidence from reality, in contrast to the uncertain generality of universal claims. To sum it up. When I say nothing can be proven and things can only be falsified... it is isomorphic to saying universal claims can't be proven, particular claims can.

ilbeeper 2y ago

Bayesian epistemology is indeed one of the developments in the field that avoids Gettie.

dogleash 2y ago

> I'm not sure I see the big deal. Tumblr is loginwalled now, so I can't find the good version of this, but I'll try and rip it: Philosophical questions like "what is knowledge" are hard precisely because everyone has an easy and obvious explanation that is sufficient to get them trough life. But, when forced to articulate that explanation, people often find them to be incomparable with other people's versions. Upon probing, the explanations don't hold at all. This is why some ancient Greek thought experiments can be mistaken for zen koans. Yeah, you can get by in life without finding a rigorous answer. The vast majority of human endeavor beyond subsistence can be filed under the category "I'm not sure I see the big deal." To say that about the question of knowledge and then vamp for 200 words is not refusing to engage. It's patching up a good-enough answer to suit a novel challenge and moving on. Which is precisely why these questions are hard, and why some people are so drawn to exploring for an answer.