Login

Anomalocaris · (This post was last modified: March 9, 2011 at 8:43 pm by Anomalocaris.)

When available evidence suggests the probability of that thing being true is substantially greater than the sum of the probabilities of each of it's alternatives being true.

~~Edwardo Piet~~ · March 9, 2011 at 4:12 pm

I know things by being aware of them. I don't know why I know or am aware of anything, in that sense I don't justify knowledge. Can you justify the premise that knowledge needs justification?

Anomalocaris · (This post was last modified: March 9, 2011 at 4:24 pm by Anomalocaris.)

(March 9, 2011 at 4:12 pm)DoubtVsFaith Wrote: I know things by being aware of them. I don't know why I know or am aware of anything, in that sense I don't justify knowledge. Can you justify the premise that knowledge needs justification?

Acting upon "knowledge" that is without certain types of justification can be shown to increase the chance of embarassing or regretable consequence that the work of justification would enable you to foresee.

~~Edwardo Piet~~ · (This post was last modified: March 9, 2011 at 4:24 pm by Edwardo Piet.)

That's assuming that knowledge can be justified. How can it? (epistemically).

Anomalocaris · March 9, 2011 at 4:25 pm

(March 9, 2011 at 4:24 pm)DoubtVsFaith Wrote: That's assuming that knowledge can be justified. How can it?

I observe that knowledge can be justified, I do not assume it.

~~Edwardo Piet~~ · March 9, 2011 at 4:26 pm

How do you know you observe it?

Anomalocaris · March 9, 2011 at 4:30 pm

(March 9, 2011 at 4:26 pm)DoubtVsFaith Wrote: How do you know you observe it?

There are certain fundamental assumptions which are fruitless to try to reduce. Provided one does not tailor these assumptions to order, they form the basis of knowledge.

~~Edwardo Piet~~ · March 9, 2011 at 4:33 pm

Ah, so it is an assumption.

You consider knowledge to be based on fundamental assumptions?

Anomalocaris · (This post was last modified: March 9, 2011 at 4:39 pm by Anomalocaris.)

(March 9, 2011 at 4:33 pm)DoubtVsFaith Wrote: Ah, so it is an assumption.

You consider knowledge to be based on fundamental assumptions?

Yes. I assume I have a reasonable and workable understanding of the accuracy with which my senses inform me.

Rayaan · March 9, 2011 at 6:06 pm

I would look at all the different arguments for a belief and examine each of them to see if their is a greater evidence for it being true than otherwise. Then, I'll examine the arguments which are against it and weigh them next to the pro-arguments and compare the two sides to adjust my beliefs accordingly. That's my theory of epistemic justification in a nutshell. If I didn't follow this, then my beliefs would be nothing but blind faith (which I don't think it is) which means that I would believe them either because of my feelings or because I was told to do so.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Moral justification for the execution of criminals of war?	Macoleco	184	13967	August 19, 2022 at 7:03 pm Last Post: bennyboy
	Hybrid theory between freewill and determinism	Won2blv	18	4910	July 26, 2017 at 10:57 am Last Post: Rev. Rye
	Attention Schema Theory	Won2blv	0	542	February 18, 2017 at 1:00 pm Last Post: Won2blv
	What is the best theory for what intelligence is?	DespondentFishdeathMasochismo	30	6565	December 7, 2015 at 10:10 pm Last Post: Edwardo Piet
	Chaos theory	MagetheEntertainer	25	5300	July 15, 2014 at 12:43 pm Last Post: FreeTony
	Hidden God theory	ziyadalvi	12	4457	July 27, 2013 at 9:00 am Last Post: ziyadalvi
	Mandelbrot Fractal and Watchmaker theory as proof for gods existence?	Mystical	13	5093	April 10, 2013 at 7:10 pm Last Post: The Grand Nudger
	Justification for Foundational Belief	Skepsis	83	38152	August 17, 2012 at 2:54 am Last Post: Humesapprentice
	Justification Theory: Preliminary Questions	Nimzo	4	2482	May 8, 2011 at 6:35 pm Last Post: Nimzo
	Theory of MI	Sarcasm	0	1132	April 8, 2011 at 5:51 pm Last Post: Sarcasm