Knowledge is Useless

[reason]

The traditional definition of knowledge has it that for a statement to be classed as knowledge it must be justified, true, and believed. To satisfy these three conditions a criterion of truth is required, that is, a rule or procedure which can prove that a statement is true.

Although a statement which is true for one is true for all, one can have knowledge that nobody else has. Some people may have performed a procedure which proves that a statement is true, while others have not. Knowledge, therefore, depends upon the history of each individual’s personal experience--such as sense perceptions or clear and distinct ideas. It is not enough to merely be believe a true statement to have knowledge, but necessary to "back up" or "support" that belief by appealing to some personal experience. For example, before a true statement can become knowledge, it may be necessary to conduct a scientific experiment, develop a mathematical proof, or even consult a religious text.

Suppose there is a statement which two people think is true, and moreover, it is actually true. However, only one has knowledge, that is, has performed a procedure which proves the statement is true. One day, both are betting on horse racing, and the statement is, 'Flying Scotsman will win the next race.' Both place the same bet on the same horse, and when Flying Scotsman wins the race, both collect the same winnings. Only one knew that Flying Scotsman would win. However, if one without knowledge can be as successful as another with knowledge, then what does knowledge do? Perhaps it provides peace-of-mind or confidence. But suppose that for our two gamblers it does not. Would it matter if knowledge did not exist? Both would have still have won their bet even if neither had knowledge.

Justified true belief offers no practical benefit which mere true belief does not, and it can, therefore, be safely discarded.

Note: In fact, I would argue that it should be discarded.

 

[Jack Flak]

Sure, why not? I mean, useless for what is the question, and if your construct leaves it useless, it's useless. Oh, Lee.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

The traditional definition of knowledge has it that for a statement to be classed as knowledge it must be justified, true, and believed. To satisfy these three conditions a criterion of truth is required, that is, a rule or procedure which can prove that a statement is true.

Although a statement which is true for one is true for all, one can have knowledge that nobody else has. Some people may have performed a procedure which proves that a statement is true, while others have not. Knowledge, therefore, depends upon the history of each individual’s personal experience--such as sense perceptions or clear and distinct ideas. It is not enough to merely be believe a true statement to have knowledge, but necessary to "back up" or "support" that belief by appealing to some personal experience. For example, before a true statement can become knowledge, it may be necessary to conduct a scientific experiment, develop a mathematical proof, or even consult a religious text.

Suppose there is a statement which two people think is true, and moreover, it is actually true. However, only one has knowledge, that is, has performed a procedure which proves the statement is true. One day, both are betting on horse racing, and the statement is, 'Flying Scotsman will win the next race.' Both place the same bet on the same horse, and when Flying Scotsman wins the race, both collect their winnings. Only one knew that Flying Scotsman would win. However, if one without knowledge can be as successful as another with knowledge, then what does knowledge do? Perhaps it provides peace-of-mind or confidence. But suppose that for our two gamblers it does not. Would it matter if knowledge did not exist? Both would have still have won their bet, and nothing else need have changed.

Justified true belief offers no practical benefit which mere true belief does not, and it can, therefore, be safely discarded.

Note: In fact, I would argue that it should be discarded.

Okay, how about this. I could guess by chance that there will be an economical depression in China in the year of 2040. The statement: there will be a depression in China in 2040 is true because in the year 2041 we will document such an occurence.

That is a true belief. Yet, I have no reason to have confidence in such a belief as it was a mere guess. If I was an economist on the other hand, I may have a rigorous formula to support such a prediction of mine. In the latter case I'd have more confidence in my predictions as there is some rationale to support them. And for good reasons too, as an economist, my predictions will be correct more frequently than the random guesses of someone who is not an economist.

For this reason 'justified true belief' concept should not be discarded. To claim that it should be discarded is as just as absurd as stating that we need not attempt to find reasons to believe in things that we do, we are better off just guessing. Just like if we were solving a complex mathematical problem, forget about the proof! Just guess what the answer is going to be, you just might be right, might not! Oh well, but discard the justified true belief concept! Its no good I tell you, all those 100 some steps in the proof which are deductively valid and are founded on our initial premises mean absolutely nothing!

Or how about, if I want to drive to Chicago from Detroit, forget about mapquest and all the plans I am going to make regarding what roads I need to take to get from here to there, why don't I just guess how I should drive! It will be all good in the end, as after all the justified true belief concept is no good anyway!

--------------------------------------------------------------

In summary, justified belief is useful on 3 accounts.

1)It is a more reliable guide to having knowledge than blind guessing.
2)It gives us more confidence in what we know.
3)Thinking rationally allows for us to change our beliefs without much stress. Contrast the cases of a religious dogmatist and a religious philosopher. A religious philosopher can alter his beliefs through further logical analysis of them, yet the religious dogmatist experiences much stress when his beliefs are challenged.

---------------------------------------------------------------

I must confess, my dear sir, I earnestly do not understand where you're going with this thread!

 

[reason]

Sure, why not? I mean, useless for what is the question

For successful action.

If your construct leaves it useless, it's useless. Oh, Lee.

Of course, because otherwise I would have argued invalidly, and that was not my intent.

 

[reason]

Okay, how about this. I could guess by chance that there will be an economical depression in China in the year of 2040. The statement: there will be a depression in China in 2040 is true because in the year 2041 we will document such an occurence.

So your 2041 documentation of a depression in China is the cause of a 2040 depression in China? If only those who documentated the Great Depression knew what they were doing!

1) It is a more reliable guide to having knowledge than blind guessing.

If knowledge is always true, then it is reliable, but not because it is knowledge, but because it is true. True statements are reliable, not knowledge.

I must confess, my dear sir, I earnestly do not understand where you're going with this thread.

Knowledge doesn't do anything. It's superfluous.

 

[reason]

Here's another little nugget. It begins the same as before, but ends differently.

The traditional definition of knowledge has it that for a statement to be classed as knowledge it must be justified, true, and believed. To satisfy these three conditions a criterion of truth is required, that is, a rule or procedure which can prove that a statement is true.

Although a statement which is true for one is true for all, one can have knowledge that nobody else has. Some people may have performed a procedure which proves that a statement is true, while others have not. Knowledge, therefore, depends upon the history of each individual’s personal experience--such as sense perceptions or clear and distinct ideas. It is not enough to merely be believe a true statement to have knowledge, but necessary to "back up" or "support" that belief by appealing to some personal experience. For example, before a true statement can become knowledge, it may be necessary to conduct a scientific experiment, develop a mathematical proof, or even consult a religious text.

If personal experience is used to prove a statement--and thereby, create knowledge--then it is generally expected of a proven statement that it be logically entailed by whatever experience is invoked as justification. Logic, however, does not take experiences as premises, because they are not objects from which deductions can be made. Propositional-variables are the objects of logic; a proposition is a kind of statement. Experiences are not statements, and therefore, nothing can be deduced from them. Propositions may be constructed about experiences, but there is no logical relation (consistency, inconsistency, or entailment) between a statement and an experience. Logical relations, such as entailment, can only hold between one proposition and another proposition. If experiences are to be used as a “foundation” or “basis” for knowledge, then they do so non-logically.​

 

[Eldanen]

Uselessness is a subjective values statement.

 

[reason]

Here's another.

The traditional definition of knowledge has it that for a statement to be classed as knowledge it must be justified, true, and believed. To satisfy these three conditions a criterion of truth is required, that is, a rule or procedure which can prove that a statement is true.

Although a statement which is true for one is true for all, one can have knowledge that nobody else has. Some people may have performed a procedure which proves that a statement is true, while others have not. Knowledge, therefore, depends upon the history of each individual’s personal experience--such as sense perceptions or clear and distinct ideas. It is not enough to merely be believe a true statement to have knowledge, but necessary to "back up" or "support" that belief by appealing to some personal experience. For example, before a true statement can become knowledge, it may be necessary to conduct a scientific experiment, develop a mathematical proof, or even consult a religious text.

Knowledge is less about truth than it is about ethics. It is not concerned with whether an idea is true or false, but with whether it is right or wrong to believe that an idea is true or false. Check out almost any thread about the existence of God, for example. Ideas are not criticised, people are. Discussion primarily concerned whether it is right to believe something, not whether that something is true or false. People demand "reasons"--by which they mean past experiences--from people to justify their beliefs, and if they cannot provide the right kind of experiences then they shouldn't believe what they do.

Many sceptics think something has been gained by recognising fallible (i.e. possibly false) knowledge, but when knowledge is fallible, it has even less to do with truth than before!​

 

[reason]

Uselessness is a subjective values statement.

Yes, but whether it is useful for some subjective standard is not subjective. In other words, once a standard of usefulness is specificied, then true and false statements can be made about usefulness, or lackthereof.

 

[Eldanen]

*ponders whether this topic is begging the question*

 

[Jack Flak]

If the question is "WTF?" then yes, it is.

 

[Eldanen]

If the question is "WTF?" then yes, it is.

Agreed. I call non sequitur!

 

[reason]

*ponders whether this topic is begging the question*

Topics can't beg the question. People beg questions, not topics. I am not begging the question, not because my conclusion is not presupposed by my premises (it is, and has to be if I am arguing validly), but because I do not expect my premises to justify my conclusion (at least not in any logical sense, perhaps psychologically).

 

[Eldanen]

Topics can't beg the question. People beg questions, not topics. I am not begging the question, not because my conclusion is not presupposed by my premises (it is, and has to be if I am arguing validly), but because I do not expect my premises to justify my conclusion (at least not in any logical sense, perhaps psychologically).

The same way guns don't shoot people. See, men just hold out their finger and say *bang* and the other person drops dead.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Suppose there is a statement which two people think is true, and moreover, it is actually true. However, only one has knowledge, that is, has performed a procedure which proves the statement is true. One day, both are betting on horse racing, and the statement is, 'Flying Scotsman will win the next race.' Both place the same bet on the same horse, and when Flying Scotsman wins the race, both collect the same winnings. Only one knew that Flying Scotsman would win. However, if one without knowledge can be as successful as another with knowledge, then what does knowledge do? Perhaps it provides peace-of-mind or confidence. But suppose that for our two gamblers it does not. Would it matter if knowledge did not exist? Both would have still have won their bet even if neither had knowledge.

Justified true belief offers no practical benefit which mere true belief does not, and it can, therefore, be safely discarded.

Note: In fact, I would argue that it should be discarded.

The conclusion doesn't follow because it's too broad. In your hypothetical with the horse race it might not matter, but that doesn't mean it's useless across the board. You can easily construct a hypothetical where it would be very important. Suppose the unjustified knowledge gambler chose the wrong horse but believed he was right. Justifying, or checking, his belief could prevent him from losing a bet. Conclusion: knowledge is valuable and should always be pursued, especially if you're betting on horses.

(Sorry if BlueWing or someone else already said this.)

 

[Eldanen]

The conclusion doesn't follow because it's too broad. In your hypothetical with the horse race it might not matter, but that doesn't mean it's useless across the board. You can easily construct a hypothetical where it would be very important. Suppose the unjustified knowledge gambler chose the wrong horse but believed he was right. Justifying, or checking, his belief could prevent him from losing a bet. Conclusion: knowledge is valuable and should always be pursued, especially if you're betting on horses.

(Sorry if BlueWing or someone else already said this.)

I've actually won a horse-racing bet before. My dad should have bet all of his money. We would have won! But he only spent a couple dollars so we didn't get a big return :<. Oh well .

 

[reason]

The conclusion doesn't follow because it's too broad. In your hypothetical with the horse race it might not matter, but that doesn't mean it's useless across the board. You can easily construct a hypothetical where it would be very important. Suppose the unjustified knowledge gambler chose the wrong horse but believed he was right. Justifying, or checking, his belief could prevent him from losing a bet. Conclusion: knowledge is valuable and should always be pursued, especially if you're betting on horses.

(Sorry if BlueWing or someone else already said this.)

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?

 

[reason]

The same way guns don't shoot people. See, men just hold out their finger and say *bang* and the other person drops dead.

Except a gun doesn't shoot someone of its own volition. Men use guns to shoot people.

Anyway, men cannot use topics to beg questions! A topic is not even an argument, and even arguments do not beg the question by themselves. It is the intent or expectations which people have of an argument which might beg the question.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

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.

According to you, false belief is not as useful as true belief. Of course, I agree, but it's wholly irrelevent.

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?

You can't really know if it's useful except in retrospect, and even then, you need a system of values to determine what ends you think have merit and what ends don't. It might be useful to verify something for reasons unrelated to that specific event (the horse race). If he finds out that Flying Scotsman will win because the horse always wins on Tuesdays, or because the other horses have all been shot to death, he can make more money next time. So, if you find out WHY you're right, you can seize that information and improve yourself.

If you just mean with regard to the past race, then sure, I'd agree. But it's not surprising, since the outcome of the race (and of the winnings) is independent of the justification. As long as they maintain the same belief and act the same, they're in the same position as far as THAT race goes.

 

[reason]

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?