(March 18, 2017 at 5:47 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: But MK... you said knowledge was this:
(March 18, 2017 at 1:55 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I would define knowledge to be what we honestly believe.
But we can honestly believe something without having knowledge of anything real. We can honestly believe something and be mistaken. We can honestly believe something and be deluded. Honest belief is not knowledge. Honest belief is a necessary part of the definition but it's an incomplete and insufficent definition because belief also has to be accurate, justified and not merely accurate and justfied by accident (the Gettier problem).
And this statement...
(March 18, 2017 at 5:20 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I am saying when one is honest to oneself, one can distinguish between warranted justified belief and unjustified unwarranted belief.
...is stating something completely different to this statement:
(March 18, 2017 at 1:55 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I would define knowledge to be what we honestly believe.
...because stating that you get to knowledge via being honest with yourself is completely different to stating that the definition of knowledge is being honest with yourself.
I am saying we only honestly believe in things that are warranted.
I argued why.
The confusion all happens only when we lie to ourselves. It is only then what should be justified and we should be believe and what we shouldn't is one big mess.
The solution to knowledge and distinguishing truth from falsehood obviously requires us to study and reason. What am I saying is that with truthfulness though we won't believe in false things in actuality.
We may think or lean towards false things, but we only believe in what is warranted and justified with truthfulness and we won't convince ourselves of things that are not true but we believe in them simply because we want to.
