Every Proposition
Every Proposition fits into one of three Sets:
Set1) No Truth-Value - Opinion
Set2) Do Not Know Truth-Value - Belief
Set3) Know Truth-Value - Knowledge
As Set1, Set2, and Set3 form an all-inclusive trichotomy, so also does Opinion, Belief, and Knowledge.
Two Assertions About what Belief Is
1) Belief is the probabilistic subset of Set2.
- Know - Do Not Know - Opinion
2) Knowledge is a subset of Belief
- Set3 is a subset of Set2
Truth-values we Know - Knowledge
Set3 is NOT a subset of Set2, ergo Knowledge is NOT a subset of Belief.
Belief is the probabilistic subset of the Do Not Know Set(Set2).
As Set1 is not synonomous with Set2, it is impossible Belief and Opinion are synonyms.
Proper Terminology
Opinion: A proposition of which it is known the proposition has no truth-value. Eg: A waterfall is beautiful. Beautiful is not a quantifiable attribute of a waterfall.
Belief: A proposition of which the truth-value remains unknown that is to be rationalized based on probability.
Knowledge: A proposition of which the truth-value of a certain pattern in the matter of existence is understood with certainty.
What is truth?
Truth is a word.
What is a word?
A word is a certain pattern in the matter of existence.
Understanding with certainty a certain pattern in the matter of existence, such as a word, is Knowledge.
Sunday, March 17, 2019
Friday, September 28, 2018
Philosophy
In all matters, Philosophy is the discipline of all rational dialogue required to properly separate things one does Know, from things they Do Not Know, and also from Opinion.
A Philosopher, being a lover of wisdom, understands:
A Philosopher understands:
All objective terminologhy given to a certain system, is philoophical dialogue. In a different given certain system, the meaning of terminology may change.
For one to assert a thing they Do Not Know is a thing they Know, is irrational. It is not philosophical dialogue, it is arguing.
For one to assert a thing they Do Not Know is an Opinion, is irrational. It is not philosophical dialogue, it is arguing.
Things you Do Not Know are to be held as things to be questioned.
It is irrational to argue "No one can know any thing with absolute certainty.", as according to the dichotomy of certainty vs uncertainty, this would be in your list of things that remain uncertain, therefore it is you admitting to being uncertain if it is possible to know a thing for certain or not, therefore you are only asking "Is it possible to know a thing for certain or not?".
Philosophical skepticism is understanding there are things known for certain and there are things that remain uncertain, and understanding that with proof and reproof can a thing be known for certain.
A Philosopher, being a lover of wisdom, understands:
In all matters, it is wise to properly separate things you Know, from things one does you Do Not Know, and also from Opinion. It is the fool that mixes them.The trichotomy of Know, Do Not Know, and Opinion is the foundation to all philosophical dialogue.
A Philosopher understands:
All objective terminologhy given to a certain system, is philoophical dialogue. In a different given certain system, the meaning of terminology may change.
For one to assert a thing they Do Not Know is a thing they Know, is irrational. It is not philosophical dialogue, it is arguing.
For one to assert a thing they Do Not Know is an Opinion, is irrational. It is not philosophical dialogue, it is arguing.
Things you Do Not Know are to be held as things to be questioned.
It is irrational to argue "No one can know any thing with absolute certainty.", as according to the dichotomy of certainty vs uncertainty, this would be in your list of things that remain uncertain, therefore it is you admitting to being uncertain if it is possible to know a thing for certain or not, therefore you are only asking "Is it possible to know a thing for certain or not?".
Philosophical skepticism is understanding there are things known for certain and there are things that remain uncertain, and understanding that with proof and reproof can a thing be known for certain.
The Philosophy of Knowing and Not Knowing
It is true there are things you know, and there are things you do not know.
It is wise to properly separate things you know from things you do not know.
It really is that easy, the separation of things you know from things you do not know.
You pick a matter for discussion, any matter, and then you make two lists. One list is a list of things you are certain about in the matter, and the other list is a list of things you are uncertain about in the matter. Of course, you must always ensure you're actually certain of things you list as things you are certain about, as it is a sign of at least a cognitive issue when an individual says they are certain of a thing they are not actually certain about.
The infinite ability for one to properly separate things they know from things they do not know, is an ability limited only by time and chance; an ability any human free of cognitive bias and/or mental/physical health issues can do. It's what it means to be normal.
Know - Do Not Know - Opinion
Contrary to popular belief: knowledge, belief, and opinion are three completely different things.
The proper separation is Know, Do Not Know, and Opinion.
With every proposition, separate propositions with no truth-value(true or false value) from propositions with a truth-value, and then with propositions with a truth-value separate truth-values unknown from truth-values known.
Every proposition will fit into one of these three categories:
1) No truth-value exists.
2) The truth-value is unknown.
3) The truth-value is known.
A thing with no truth-value(1) is an opinion.
A thing with a truth-value unknown(2) is a belief.
A thing with a truth-value known(3) is knowledge.
Opinion
Every one is entitled to their opinions, as an opinion is neither true nor false.
eg: the waterfall is beautiful
eg: the waterfall is boring
eg: the waterfall is boring
As neither beautiful nor boring are attributes of the waterfall, both beautiful and boring are personal opinion.
Do Not Know
Every belief is justified relative to an individuals education and mental health status, from which it follows that an individual lacking an education in a certain matter, or one with a mental health disorder, may hold irrational beliefs in a matter.
It is impossible for any single individual to know everything, which is why every individual has their own list of things they know and do not know.
An individuals measure of belief about a thing they Do Not Know is dictated by probability, therefore it has nothing whatsoever to do with accepting a thing as true or false.
Things I do not know:
eg: if aliens exist or not.
eg: if the lochness monster exists or not.
eg: if bigfoot exists or not.
eg: if the lochness monster exists or not.
eg: if bigfoot exists or not.
I do not know if aliens exist or not. I have knowledge of a multitude of life forms here on earth. I have knowledge of the vastness of the universe. From this the existence of aliens can be said to be highly probable.
I do not know if the lochness monster or bigfoot exists or not. I have knowledge of people saying they're witnesses. I have knowledge of people found to have created hoaxes. From this the existence of both the lochness monster and bigfoot can be said to be low on the probability scale.
Know
Every individual knows a thing no other individual knows nor can know. There are things known by an individual others can also know. There are things every individual should know.
Things only I know:
eg: what time my clock displayed when I looked at it this morning when I awoke.
eg: what time my clock displayed when I turned my coffee pot on to make coffee.
eg: what time my clock displayed when I turned my coffee pot on to make coffee.
Things I know that others can know:
eg: my home address.
eg: my approximate height.
Things every individual should know:
eg: no single truth contradicts any other truth.
eg: every truth is singular.
eg: no word has an inherent meaning.
eg: every truth is singular.
eg: no word has an inherent meaning.
The Lists From This Page
No Truth-Value (Opinion)
The waterfall is beautiful.
The waterfall is boring.
With a Truth-Value
Do Not Know (Belief)
If aliens exist: high probability.
If the lochness monster exists: low probability.
If bigfoot exists: low probability.
Know (Knowledge)
What time my clock displayed when I looked at it this morning when I awoke.
What time my clock displayed when I turned my coffee pot on to make coffee.
My home address.
My approximate height.
No single truth contradicts any other truth.
Every truth is singular.
No word has an inherent meaning.
From here you continue to populate your lists and keep them up to date continually.
Conclusions
It is irrational to assert a thing with a truth-value to be an opinion.
It is irrational to assert to know a thing you do not know.
It is irrational to assert belief means accepting something as true, as ones measure of belief is probabilistic which is [0-1] non-inclusive.
It is wise to properly separate things you Know, things you Do Not Know, and Opinion. It is the fool that mixes them.
Deconstructing Justified True Belief
Two assertions of knowledge:
1. I know how to spell the word "know".
2. I know my dad is my biological father.
The first is known with certainty, therefore is knowledge. The second includes a degree of uncertainty, therefore is a justified true belief which may or may not be true.
The corrected statements:
1. I know how to spell the word "know".
2. I truly believe my dad is my biological father.
Epistemological Certainty - Knowledge and Justified True Belief are two completely different things.
Fixing Justified True Belief
Proposition P is an uncertainty.
An agent S "truly believes" that a proposition P is true if and only if agent S is justified in believing that P is true, else proposition P is not rational.
Justification
Justification must be that of a real system.
The real system of Mom, Dad, and you:
Mom: I know your Dad is your biological father.
Dad: I truly believe I am your biological father.
JTB: I truly believe my dad is my biological father.
The real system of Christopher Columbus:
I know of many sources.
JTB: I truly believe Christopher Columbus existed when it is said he did.<
The real system of the Gettier Problem:
President to Smith: Jones is getting the job.
Smith to self: I truly believe the President.
President to Smith: You got the job.
Conclusion
Justified True Belief is not sufficient for knowledge.
1. I know how to spell the word "know".
2. I know my dad is my biological father.
The first is known with certainty, therefore is knowledge. The second includes a degree of uncertainty, therefore is a justified true belief which may or may not be true.
The corrected statements:
1. I know how to spell the word "know".
2. I truly believe my dad is my biological father.
Epistemological Certainty - Knowledge and Justified True Belief are two completely different things.
Fixing Justified True Belief
Proposition P is an uncertainty.
An agent S "truly believes" that a proposition P is true if and only if agent S is justified in believing that P is true, else proposition P is not rational.
Justification
Justification must be that of a real system.
The real system of Mom, Dad, and you:
Mom: I know your Dad is your biological father.
Dad: I truly believe I am your biological father.
JTB: I truly believe my dad is my biological father.
The real system of Christopher Columbus:
I know of many sources.
JTB: I truly believe Christopher Columbus existed when it is said he did.<
The real system of the Gettier Problem:
President to Smith: Jones is getting the job.
Smith to self: I truly believe the President.
President to Smith: You got the job.
Conclusion
Justified True Belief is not sufficient for knowledge.
Gettier Problem - Not A Problem
This is about the Gettier problem and how it's not actually a problem, but a fallacy of induction.
Case 1. The case’s protagonist is Smith.
Smith and Jones have applied for a certain job.
Smith has been told by the company president that Jones will get the job.
Smith has evidence of there being ten coins in Jones’s pocket. (He had counted them himself — an odd but imaginable circumstance.)
Smith combines the testimonial evidence of the company president and the knowledge of Jones having ten coins, and proceeds to infer that the one that will get the job has ten coins in their pocket.
(As the present article proceeds, we will refer to this belief several times more. For convenience, therefore, let us call it belief b.)
Notice that Smith is not thereby guessing. On the contrary; his belief b enjoys a reasonable amount of justificatory support. There is the company president’s testimony; there is Smith’s observation of the coins in Jones’s pocket; and there is Smith’s proceeding to infer belief b carefully and sensibly from that other evidence. Belief b is thereby justified — supported by evidence which is reasonable. As it happens, belief b is true — although not in the way in which Smith was expecting it to be true. For it is Smith who will get the job, and Smith himself has ten coins in his pocket. These two facts combine to make his belief b true. Nevertheless, neither of those facts is something that, on its own, was known by Smith. Is his belief b therefore not knowledge? In other words, does Smith fail to know that the person who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket? Surely so (thought Gettier).
And here is the Gettier problem fixed.
It is not mentioned if the president makes the final decision in this matter.
Smith has been told by the president Jones will get the job.
Smith knows Jones has ten coins.
Smith does not know how many coins he has.
Smith infers that "whoever will get the job has ten coins in their pocket". This is incompletely as Smith negates the possibility he also may have ten coins in his pocket.
Rephrasing this properly so the coins are meaningless, which they are, Smith is attempting to infer: Jones will get the job and he will not. This is a fallacy of induction due to the fact that a single claim by a single individual(the president) is not enough to make a conclusion.
The Gettier problem asserts Smith "enjoys a reasonable amount of justificatory support." due to "the company president’s testimony", therefore Smith does "truly believe" Jones will get the job.
What is true: Smith believes the president.
As it turns out, Smith gets the job and not Jones.
The Gettier problem reveals how a belief that is both justified and rational, can be wrong.
Münchhausen Trilemma
It is claimed the Münchhausen Trilemma is "a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth".
It states every proof is either circular, regressive, or axiomatic assertions.
So, I was thinking ...
Every human knows a thing no other human knows. Also, every human knows a thing no other human knows nor can know, which is called special knowledge. That every human is special is neither circular, regressive, nor simply an assertion. It is an axiomatic truth, knowledge.
The proposition "I am" is neither circular, nor infinitely regressive, nor is it a mere assertion.
That "I Am" is supported by the certain pattern in the matter of existence that I am. I am THAT I am. WHAT I am is a different matter altogether.
Proof is found in the instanteous and transcendental nature of a realization, in understanding a certain pattern in the matter of existence.
What is truth?
Truth is a word.
What is a word?
A word is a certain pattern in the matter of existence.
What is knowledge?
The understanding of a certain pattern in the matter of existence, such as a word, is knowledge.
Sorry Münchhausen ...
It states every proof is either circular, regressive, or axiomatic assertions.
So, I was thinking ...
Every human knows a thing no other human knows. Also, every human knows a thing no other human knows nor can know, which is called special knowledge. That every human is special is neither circular, regressive, nor simply an assertion. It is an axiomatic truth, knowledge.
The proposition "I am" is neither circular, nor infinitely regressive, nor is it a mere assertion.
That "I Am" is supported by the certain pattern in the matter of existence that I am. I am THAT I am. WHAT I am is a different matter altogether.
Proof is found in the instanteous and transcendental nature of a realization, in understanding a certain pattern in the matter of existence.
What is truth?
Truth is a word.
What is a word?
A word is a certain pattern in the matter of existence.
What is knowledge?
The understanding of a certain pattern in the matter of existence, such as a word, is knowledge.
Sorry Münchhausen ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)