|
|
 | | From: | Lester Zick | | Subject: | Re: Epistemology 101 | | Date: | Mon, 27 Dec 2004 17:51:54 GMT |
|
|
 | On 26 Dec 2004 18:38:32 -0800, "Mike" in
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
>Lester Zick wrote:
>> Epistemology 101
>> ----------
>[sni[ epistemology 000]
>
>> The reason is that there are two kinds of processes involved:
>emprical
>> and logical. Empirical observations just represent positive
>judgments.
>> Logical inference on the other hand represent negations of positive
>> judgments compounded in various ways.
>>
>
>Logical inferences deal only with validity.
Of course they do. So far you get no points for insight. The question
is how they deal only with validity and not whether they do.
> The truth or falsity of the
>premises used is the subject of emprirical knowledge.
Howzzat again?
>Now, if you do not understand the above, like most of undegrads who
>fail logic, is because you either did not take logic 101 or you did not
>pay attention to your teachers.
Guess why I didn't pay attention to teachers like you.
>Epistemology died when Russel came up with his famous skeptical
>argument:
Oh, I expect that Russell's paradoxes explain a lot. They just don't
explain you.
>One surely knows what he did yesterday but he does not know that the
>world did not begin 5 minutes ago with all the necessary memories and
>archaiological traces needed so we believe it's been there for billions
>of years. You see , the knowledge you lack is that epistemology,
>whether foundational or modern deals with justifiable true belief and
>not with what is just true or false and the method to prove it.
Oookay, then. Moving right along.
> Thus,
>the objective of epistemology is to refute the skeptic. This is very
>different from your apparent misinterpretation of the subject.
>
>a knows that p if and only if
>
>1. p
>2. a believes that p
>3. a's belief that p is justified
>
>But even this standard account of knowledge, called the tripartine
>definition, run into problems as Gettier showed. That led to the
>conditional theory of knowledge:
Yes, yes, I'm quite aware the standard account has problems, which I
corrected some time back. Apparently you weren't paying attention.
>a knows that p if and only if
>
>1. p
>2. a believes that p
>3. if p were not true, a would not believe in p
>4. if circumstances changed and p were still true, a would still
>believe that p
>
>But even the above account has problems. That led to the causal theory
>of knowledge:
>
>a knows that p if and only if
>
>1. p
>2. a believes that p
>3. a's belief 2 is justified
>4. a' belief 3 is caused by the fact that p is true
>
>But this has shown to lead to an infinite regress as one can continue
>on adding causes and justifications thereof.
>
>All these to give you a flavor of what you are missing.
>Actually, I think your aim is clear.
Well, it seems to have escaped you.
Regards - Lester
|
|
|
