• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Knowledge is Useless

ThatsWhatHeSaid

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
7,263
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Suppose that before time t Bluewing believes P is true, and after t Bluewing knows P is true. Why is P more reliable after t?

Would P let Bluewing down before t? Would P feel obliged to be more reliable after t? What does the history of Bluewing's subjective experiences have to do with P (supposing P is not about his experiences)? And why would those experiences be important?

Statements don't feel obliged, Lee. Only people can feel obliged.

:dont:
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Okay, so you're saying: if it's already right but we haven't verified it, it's useless. Verification might be useless to that specific event, but does that mean it's useless in general?
I am saying that knowledge doesn't do anything. If I believe that P is true and it is actually true, then verifying it, justifying it, confirming it, or whatever else, will not make it more true, or more reliable, or more accurate.

Success in action depends upon choosing right, that is, predicting truths, not on confidence, certitude, or justifications. Knowledge might as well not exist (and I do not think it does). Everyone can continue as they were, more or less.
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Statements don't feel obliged, Lee. Only people can feel obliged.
That's my point. Even talking about ideas as though they can be reliable is unnecessarily anthropomorphising them. When we say that someone is reliable, we mean they can be trusted and try their best to live up to their word. Sometimes it's as though people think that an propositions will become more reliable, more likely to come through and be true more often, if only they invest their confidence or certitude in it.

Most bizarre indeed.

Propositions don't care though, and our belief, however strong, does not make them true (another interesting use of language. Note how earlier in this thread Bluewing wrote about his hypothesised Chinese depression of 2040 as though his documentation of it in 2041 made it true).
 

ThatsWhatHeSaid

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
7,263
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Success in action depends upon choosing right, that is, predicting truths, not on confidence, certitude, or justifications. Knowledge might as well not exist (and I do not think it does). Everyone can continue as they were, more or less.

Yeah, but what I'm telling you is that success in action isn't the only measure of value. You're saying that it's valueless because your ideas don't matter if your choice is the same. Fine. But your future choices and beliefs are going to be affected by the information you have now, which you can gain through verification. You use information to calibrate and optimize decisions you make later. Therefore, it has value.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Except he wasn't wrong; he was right. The point is that once he is right, it doesn't matter if he has knowledge or not. Knowledge doesn't do anything which true belief doesn't do quite a well.

All that you have stated is that false belief is not as useful as true belief (and by extension, justified true belief), but so what? Did anyone say otherwise?

One question. Do you think it is easier to stand by your true belief if you have a rational argument to support it, rather than if it is simply a castle in the air?

For example, do you think it is easier for me to be confident in my belief that if I take I-94 to Chicago, I will arrive there if I have studied the map and based on that see reasons to believe that 94 leads to Chicago, rather than if someone I dont know told me that if I take 94 I will end up in Chicago, and for some strange reason I believe in this?

In essence, I do agree that what is useful is the true belief in itself, not the process of reasoning that we have used to support such a belief. However, it is much easier to hold on to a belief that you have supported with argument than to a belief that you have not supported with argument.

Thus, if the utility is knowledge in itself, our goal should be to hold on to this knowledge, supporing what we know with rational argument helps us to remain in tune with our true beliefs. Thus, the reasoning process that we use to support our beliefs is not an end in itself, but means to an end.

Suppose that before time t Bluewing believes P is true, and after t Bluewing knows P is true. Why is P more reliable after t?

Would P let Bluewing down before t? Would P feel obliged to be more reliable after t? What does the history of Bluewing's subjective experiences have to do with P (supposing P is not about his experiences)? And why would those experiences be important?


This goes back to our earlier example concerning economical predictions.

Suppose an economist has a formula to predict that there wil be a depression in China at 2040. Today he can say that he knows this because he has good reasons to believe in this. At 2041, he could say he knows it better as he has more and better reasons to believe that a depression would occur in 2040 in China.

Thus knowledge is to be equated with propositions that could allow a rational person to be confident in his beliefs. On this note, a blind guess should not be considered knowledge because it does not offer a rational person a reason to believe in the proposition we have in mind.

Therefore the term justified true belief is inseparable from the term knowledge, they are synonymous.
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Yeah, but what I'm telling you is that success in action isn't the only measure of value. You're saying that it's valueless because your ideas don't matter if your choice is the same. Fine. But your future choices and beliefs are going to be affected by the information you have now, which you can gain through verification. You use information to calibrate and optimize decisions you make later. Therefore, it has value.
Of course, but only if the experiences with which you calibrate and optimise decisions are true (or more precisely, your interpretations of your experiences are true). If they are not, then "justifying" them by such experiences might make things worse.
 

ThatsWhatHeSaid

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
7,263
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Of course, but only if the experiences with which you calibrate and optimise decisions are true (or more precisely, your interpretations of your experiences are true). If they are not, then "justifying" them by such experiences might make things worse.

Eh. I think you're playing with the word justification now. Justification should be thought of more as testing rather than straight justifying or rationalizing. If you have a belief, testing your belief (justifying or verifying) is the only way to distinguish between true beliefs and false beliefs, which you've already conceded have merit.
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
One question. Do you think it is easier to stand by your true belief if you have a rational argument to support it, rather than if it is simply a castle in the air?
Why would I want to make it easier for what I believe to be true? You are beginning to sound like a theologian.

If I wanted to make it easier to stand by my beliefs, then I could do so easily. I could, for example, dismiss all contrary evidence as fallible, inconclusive, or reinterpret it away. Then I might decide that contradictions are acceptable after all, and that truth is not very important. My beliefs are whatever they are, cannot be held to any standard, and thus, are easier to "stand by."
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Why would I want to make it easier for what I believe to be true? You are beginning to sound like a theologian.."



The answer to that question is, as I have interpreted, your claim was the only thing that has utility is knowledge in itself. (Perhaps I misinterpreted what you meant). As for example, if I want to get from point A to point B, knowledge of how I could do so is what will help me the most.


Therefore, if we are sure that we have knowledge, and we know that knowledge is of foremost utility, we should hold on to it.

However, in order to make sure that what we regard is knowledge truly is knowledge, we must logically analyze the matter first.

If I wanted to make it easier to stand by my beliefs, then I could do so easily. I could, for example, dismiss al contrary evidence as fallible, inconclusive. Then I might decide that contradictions are acceptable after all, and that truth is not very important. My beliefs are whatever they are and cannot be held to any standard, thus are easier to "stand by."


The problem with this is, you would not be doing logical analysis of your beliefs, therefore you do not know if what you regard as knowledge truly is knowledge. Because of this, it does not make sense for you to hold on to your beliefs at this point.
 

ThatsWhatHeSaid

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
7,263
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
I like these threads. We should start a new subforum in Philosophy called "Lee takes a ridiculous position that he doesn't believe and justifies it for hours to your chagrin."
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Eh. I think you're playing with the word justification now. Justification should be thought of more as testing rather than straight justifying or rationalizing. If you have a belief, testing your belief (justifying or verifying) is the only way to distinguish between true beliefs and false beliefs, which you've already conceded have merit.
No no. People distinguish between true and false propositions by choice (and they may distinguish wrongly). They may be motivated by some experience, but the experience does not distinguish anything. Both because experiences are not logical objects, and because statements about experiences could be false. The decision to accept an interpretation of an experience is a choice, one for which, like every other, there is no justification. There may be reasons, motivations, or causes, but such things provide no logical basis from which to draw any conclusion.
 

Eldanen

Arcesso pulli gingerios!
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
697
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
I like these threads. We should start a new subforum in Philosophy called "Lee takes a ridiculous position that he doesn't believe and justifies it for hours to your chagrin."

Me too. I also love banging my head on a table until I bleed to death.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
No no. People distinguish between true and false propositions by choice (and they may distinguish wrongly). They may be motivated by some experience, but the experience does not distinguish anything. Both because experiences are not logical objects, and because statements about experiences could be false. The decision to accept an interpretation of an experience is a choice, one for which, like every other, there is no justification. There may be reasons, motivations, or causes, but such things provide no logical basis from which to draw any conclusion.

:yes:
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
The problem with this is, you would not be doing logical analysis of your beliefs, therefore you do not know if what you regard as knowledge truly is knowledge. Because of this, it does not make sense for you to hold on to your beliefs at this point.
So it is a prerequisite to performing logical analysis that one cares whether their beliefs are true?
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
BlueWing,

Sense perception is theory-laden. A simple report, such as, 'there are books on the shelves nearby,' is loaded with theory. Even the notion of a book is one which is defined in terms of lawful behaviour, and thus, governs over an infinite domain. If these laws by which the characteristics of a book are understood are false, then what are on the shelves nearby? Not books, because books do not exist. When interpreted with new theories, the same perceptions may be reported entirely differently, 'there are no books on the shelves nearby,' or even, 'there is no shelf nearby.' That which is called evidence could be false, and lead one astray if mistakenly classified as true.

Self-evidence--valued highly by those who seek refuge from responsibility--is also theory-laden. Those who claim to have had divine experiences should do well to remember it. Enough mad-men have stolen, murdered, and raped, because God told them to. If they had as much scepticism for self-evidence as is common of ordinary evidence, then perhaps fewer of them would be thought mad. Men are apt to project their initial interpretation of the evidence, and mistake it for the way the world has to be.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
So it is a prerequisite to performing logical analysis that one cares whether their beliefs are true?

Other way around. First we analyze all things with as few preconceived notions as possible and only after we have finished analyzing we decide what is true and what is not.

Hey BlueWing, do I know you from elsewhere? Do you have any alternate names or nicks?

Solitarywalker
Seawolf399

BlueWing,

Sense perception is theory-laden. A simple report, such as, 'there are books on the shelves nearby,' is loaded with theory. Even the notion of a book is one which is defined in terms of lawful behaviour, and thus, governs over an infinite domain. If these laws by which the characteristics of a book are understood are false, then what are on the shelves nearby? Not books, because books do not exist. When interpreted with new theories, the same perceptions may be reported entirely differently, 'there are no books on the shelves nearby,' or even, 'there is no shelf nearby.' That which is called evidence could be false, and lead one astray if mistakenly classified as true..

It is possible to create epistemic constructs in which the terms shelf and books have one meaning that is clear to all. As after all, when someone tells you, your fly is unzipped, you don't go on wondering whether this is a meaningful statement, you proceed to action immediately.



Self-evidence--valued highly by those who seek refuge from responsibility--is also theory-laden. Those who claim to have had divine experiences should do well to remember it. Enough mad-men have stolen, murdered, and raped, because God told them to. If they had as much scepticism for self-evidence as is common of ordinary evidence, then perhaps fewer of them would be thought mad. Men are apt to project their initial interpretation of the evidence, and mistake it for the way the world has to be.

Did I argue that some things are self-evident and therefore need not be questioned at all, perhaps we have another miscommunication?
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Other way around. First we analyze all things with as few preconceived notions as possible and only after we have finished analyzing we decide what is true and what is not.
I prefer to analyse things with as many preconceived notions are possible, because it makes my ideas so much more difficult to stand by. Anyway, someone can analyse ideas even though they do not think that any idea is true; postmodernists do it frequently.

It is possible to create epistemic constructs in which the terms shelf and books have one meaning that is clear to all. As after all, when someone tells you, your fly is unzipped, you don't go on wondering whether this is a meaningful statement, you proceed to action immediately.
I think you missed the point.

Did I argue that some things are self-evident and therefore need not be questioned at all, perhaps we have another miscue?
No, but then I wasn't arguing with you.
 

iwakar

crush the fences
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
4,877
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Re: title of thread

...therefore so is this thread?

:blink:
 
Top