Definition of Reality

You keep talking about people saying "I know". We began by talking about people knowing (whether or not they say they know). Which are we talking about? I can say I know without knowing, and I can know without saying I know. I don't have to believe I know in order to know. But I suppose when I say I know, I am suggesting I do know. Otherwise saying I know would be misleading. But please do separate knowing from saying (or claiming) one knows. They are quite different.

But please do separate knowing from saying (or claiming) one knows. They are quite different.

... the original question was whether or not it is even logically possible to attribute knowledge to oneself under the technical definition of "know" as justified true belief ... and the way it's looking is that one cannot say "I know" when "know" is defined as justified true belief without being misleading ... as people say "I know" all the time, the implication is that when they say it they are using the word in one of its dictionary definitions (and not the technical definition as justified true belief) ...

Once again, whether one can say I know is one thing. Whether one knows is a different thing. (One cannot say one knows is one is struck dumb. But what has that to do with the issue?) You are mixing up two issues. Claiming to know, and knowing. I may know all kinds of things I cannot claim to know because I don't believe I know them. So what?

... the original question was whether or not it is even logically possible to attribute knowledge to oneself under the technical definition of "know" as justified true belief ...

I've always felt that the word "true" was unnecessary. Why not just "justified belief?" Isn't "true" just an adjective we use for justified belief?

... as a practical definition, this suits me as well ... but there's a lot of philosophical theory grounded in the technical definition of "know" as justified true belief - for example, it provides a direct theoretical link between knowledge and truth ...

If science has not answered "why is their gravity" it is because it has not discovered a universal field theory, and not because science only describes, but does not explain. Science does both describe and explain. For instance, science tells us not only how water freezes (the molecules move more slowly) but why it freezes (how lowering the temperature affects the movement of the molecules). It is one of those false platitudes that science describes, but does not explain, but that it is philosophy that answers the why questions. Philosophy and science do not answer the same kinds of questions.

Is science itself founded upon "first science"?

Thanks. If you care to elaborate, I'm all ears.

... I can't see that I'm mixing anything up because I have simply been exploring the logical implications that the technical definition of "know" as justified true belief has on the claim "I know" ... as the technical definition appears to render the claim "I know" misleading, and assuming most people do not intend to be misleading, the implication is that when most people say "I know" they are not using "know" in the technical sense of justified true belief, but rather in one of the dictionary definitions (such as "to perceive directly" or "to be acquainted or familiar with") ...

What has that to do with whether people have to know they know in order to know in any sense of the word "know"? Where does any definition of "know" tell you that? One does not have to know that he "perceives directly" in order to perceive directly. And no one has to know that he is "acquainted or familiar with" in order to be acquainted or familiar with. I don't have to know that anything is true in order for it to be true, and that includes whether I know. That is because although knowledge implies truth, truth does not imply knowledge.

No. What did I say that has led you to wonder this?

... let's see if an example helps ... let's take the sentence "I know the sky is blue" ... now let's expand "know" with two of its definitions, "to perceive directly" and "justified true belief":

1) I have directly perceived that the sky is blue.

2) My belief that the sky is blue is justified and true.

... now, the first does not invoke the notions of belief, justification, nor truth, but merely perception, and thus doesn't seem to be controversial ... on the other hand, the second appears to assert that I am in possession of truth (because I have not qualified it with "I think that ...") and would thus be misleading ... given that people go around saying "I know" all the time (and not "I think I know"), which do you think is closer to what people mean in common conversation? ... (to refresh your memory, this all started with me saying that Kant was using "know" in a more common meaning than the technical one of justified true belief, to which you replied that you thought the technical definition was the common meaning - that's all this dead horse is about) ...

Is it that sometimes people don't use "know" to mean TJB?

"He is never seen, but is the Seer; He is never heard, but is the Hearer; He is never thought of, but is the Thinker; He is never known, but is the Knower. There is no other seer than He, there is no other hearer than He, there is no other thinker than He, there is no other knower than He. He is your Self, the Inner Controller, the Immortal. Everything else but Him is perishable." (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3:7:23)

Our nature is consciousness, so we are solely witnesses of all that is spread out around us as relative existence. Seeing it, we find ourselves "in" the ever-changing drama and begin to think that we are a part of it. Unfortunately, the seer begins to think he is the seen. And since we live in this dream along with billions of other dreamers who, like us, cannot perceive their real nature, we are told by all those voices that we are the ever-shifting patterns of light and shadow, that there is nothing but the shadow-plays in which our consciousness is immersed. So how could we be other than confused?

... who but an epistemologist ever does? ...

You have switched you position so many times, that I wonder whether you can keep up with it. I suppose you can't. It is that well known argumentative technique known as, wriggling. When you have a conclusion about knowing you wish to state, and then discuss, let me know.

Because if you insist that the cliff exists in the reality of the blind people in the thought experiment, then that is what you are essentially claiming.

What we consider reality is based upon what little empirical knowledge we've discovered. What we don't understand can't possibly exist in our reality, but that doesn't mean it can't exist in someone else's. Just as the blind people, we are blind to certain possibilities of reality in which we may never fully understand.

To say that a necessary reality exists in itself would make the claim that you are all knowing, and that your reality is the only reality.

No one can make this claim, therefore, what is real is contingent upon different perspectives concerning what is possible.

... if you think I have been switching my position around, you're as mistaken as you were when you kept accusing Houseby over and over of saying things he had not ... to wrap things up:

1) Even after having been introduced to the JTB model of knowledge, I personally do not think of JTB when I say "I know" (I only think of the more practical JB)
2) You yourself are constantly having to debate the meaning of the word "know" on this forum, indicating that many philosophically minded people aren't even aware of JTB (let alone think it when they use the word "know")
3) Webster's dictionary doesn't mention "justified true belief" as one of the definitions of "know" (not even as a philosophy-specific footnote)
4) Logically, saying "I know" is misleading for anyone who is using the technical definition of "know" as JTB, which implies that most people do not mean JTB when they say "I know"

... so to reiterate, who but an epistimologist ever uses "know" in the technical sense of JTB?

So what are the blind people falling off of then?


Primitive man had no understanding of how the solar system operated, or that he was living on something called a "planet." Didn't they still exist in his reality? Or did it exist, but in someone else's reality. This is what you seem to be saying. Something about individual realities. Or something. Frankly, I'm having a hard time understanding what you are saying.
.

It seems like a rather basic concept in my opinion.