Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.
I’ve opened a new “Sandbox” thread as a post as the new “ignore commenter” plug-in only works on threads started as posts.
Are non-Clavinists epistemologically privileged in some way or ………….
You can guess the rest.
peace
PS I do wish you would think a little deeply about this dilemma so we could move on from the repetition.
fifthmonarchyman,
It was a joke. I was making fun of your Calvinist line.
Hahaha. I’m ready to move on now. You haven’t said anything new on this in four years. All the same malarkey.
I think walto was just complaining about the circularity (“knowledge” on both sides of the statement). But he knows what I meant, and language isn’t a logic calculus anyway.
You say that but you keep acting like you aren’t.
All you have to do to move on is to not claim to have specific knowledge unless you are willing to give a justification for knowledge in general given your worldview or agree that you have no justification for knowledge.
It’s pretty simple but over and over and over again you continue to claim to know things with out ever explaining how this would be possible given your worldview.
Hence the need for repetition
peace
Yes but he said that he “knew” it was not helpful because he was a philosopher rather than he believes it’s not helpful.
That is a bold claim that requires he give justification for his supposed knowledge.
You obviously disagree with him on what constitutes the core of knowledge but he claims to “know” you are wrong without ever justifying why he can assume his privileged position .
peace
So do those which are not intentional.
Nicely put. It’s just crazy to think that one’s “worldview” (whatever the heck that is) determines what counts as justification. Yet stranger things have been believed by many a philosopher.
By the way, it is both true and justified that Moses had trouble with words and matza is good with the coffee. But those knowledge-claims have nothing to do with my being Jewish.
Yep and the very interesting question is,
Can we ever hope to tell the difference?
peace
I agree, but your worldview will determine what you think counts as justification.
Whether you are right is another question entirely
peace
How do you know that?
Sure, if you call your shot.
The same way I know anything else. revelation
peace
Very very interesting.
I’m not exactly sure what you are getting at.
Do you think the only way to tell that an action is intentional is if you are told the details about it by the “actor” ahead if time?
This might be worth an OP
peace
Wow, I want a magic word too! I’m thinking of ‘Kapowie!’
Exactly.
I believe I already explained to you that that was a joke you didn’t understand.
I think so too, but when you fail to grasp the same stuff over and over, it seems that it must be confusing to Calvinists.
Right.
Revelation is not a magic word.
You have granted that if knowledge is possible then because God is omnipotent he can reveal stuff to me so that I can know it.
peace
It’s not that I fail to grasp anything. It’s that you fail to offer a justification for knowledge given your presuppositions. I believe you even take the absurd position that you don’t need justification for knowledge.
On the other hand I have justification for knowledge given my presuppositions and you would grant this.
peace
A stubborn child, you are, Fifth. You just refuse to understand what knowledge is, in spite of being told, time after time, that it DOES NOT REQUIRE KNOWING THAT ONE KNOWS.
Maybe if you repeated that as often as you do whatever catechisms that you’ve memorized over the years, it would sink in. But I doubt it, because you seem to think your stubbornness wrt not learning this simple proposition is some kind of virtue.
Walto,
I’m in no mood and newton just shared an interesting perspective on design detection.
How about we just chalk this one up to experience and next time you not be so quick to claim that you know stuff.
peace
How about no? I’m not planning to concede that I don’t know anything just because you don’t understand what it means to know something and believe repeating your error on this ad nauseam is a virtue.
Again. We both agree that you know stuff and we both agree that you don’t need to know that you know to know.
I think I have made that clear countless times.
What we don’t agree on is whether you have justification for knowledge given your worldview.
I’m not saying that you don’t know stuff I’m saying that you have no way of accounting for why you should be able to know stuff given your presuppositions.
peace
My presuppositions do not require anybody to have ‘an account’ of why anybody ‘should be able to know stuff.’ I have some humility about heavyweight issues of that kind. You think your magic word allows you to be immodest about them.
Put another way
You begin with the unsupported presupposition that it’s possible for you to have knowledge.
I’m asking you to justify that or admit that you have no justification.
It should not be difficult
peace
I don’t ‘begin’ with any such presupposition. It simply follows from me knowing things that it’s possible that I have knowledge. It also follows that it’s possible that I exist. I don’t proceed from it as a premise just because it follows.
So you ask, ‘well, in any case, how is it possible that you should know anything?’ And I answer, ‘that’s a big, hard question involving language, psychology, biology, philosophy, etc.: all the stuff that KN and others spend entire careers studying. My own (modest) answer is–‘how the hell do I know?’ Your (immodest) answer is–‘the Lord tells me it’s possible because He wanted it so.’
The presupposed possibility of revelation, Fifth.
Is a presupposed possibility by itself justification?
One way. And predicting the outcome would be sufficient.
Can you name some others?
peace
You of course grant the possibility of revelation. So if it is a presupposition then it’s one we both share.
A presupposition is by definition not justified.
peace
How exactly do you know these things?
So unlike me you don’t know why you can know things given your worldview but yet you still boldly claim you do know things with no justification
How do you know that folks like KN will ever be successful? Of course you don’t know this but you trust that they will for absolutely no reason
I would venture to say you do know but don’t want to acknowledge that fact because you don’t like the obvious implications.
I’m fine with you saying that unlike me you don’t have any justification for claiming to be able to know stuff.
I will just point out that fact each and every time you claim to know stuff here.
peace
No. That’s that same confusion of knowing X and knowing that one knows X that you’ve displayed in about every third post you’ve made here for the past four years.
I don’t “trust that” at all! I figure they’ll probably fail. I guess you didn’t actually read my epistemology paper.
But at least they’re actually trying instead of bragging–as you and your fellow Calvinist know-it-alls proudly do.
You would be completely wrong. As you usually are.
Again, that “gotcha!” is entirely confused. You should try to learn this simple thing.
It’s not a “gotcha” it’s informational so that it’s clear to everyone that you have no basis for your claim to knowledge.
Conversations are just better when the entire context is known.
peace
It’s not bragging it’s reporting. I do have justification for knowledge but It’s not because I’m smarter or better than anyone else.
It’s because God is gracious
peace
Again. You can know stuff even if you have no justification for knowledge.
But in that case you are not justified in claiming to know stuff.
peace
Again, that’s wrong. There IS a basis. There’s no requirement that the presuppositions you’re talking about be justified. LEARN THIS.
No no no no no.
Right. You and Hannity. Just the facts.
OK, Fifth. This hollering into my shoe biz has worn me out again. You’re happy in your confused state. Fuck it. Go revel.
Sure, if it is logically possible.
Your presupposition is that a deity of your liking chooses to reveal stuff in such a way that that the revelation is a justification for your presupposition.
Again possible, but I don’t presuppose it.
It is not known to be justified. Revelation allows the presupposition to justify itself, it gives you a how to know, and remarkably revelation agrees with your presupposition. Or at least as I understand it.
peace
A lie.
The bestest kind of revelation possible!
That God can reveal stuff so that I can know is simply part of what it means to be God.
That God has chosen to reveal stuff is not a presupposition it’s just what has happened. How do I know this? Because he has revealed it.
I don’t follow you, Which presupposition is that?
My presupposition is that the Christian God of scripture exists.
I know that God exists not because I presuppose it but because he has revealed himself to me.
There is no magic or trickery here. It’s just simple interpersonal communication.
I know because the only possible person in position to know has told me.
peace
I disagree with that idea in at least two major ways.
Firstly, justification is a social practice. I can believe something is justified and be mistaken about it in roughly the same way that I can misunderstand the meaning of a word — it’s a question of epistemic norms in the one case and semantic norms in the other. But whether I’m conforming to norms or transgressing them is not something I can simply decide upon for myself. It comes down to whether my claims are sanctioned or criticized by the relevant epistemic or semantic peers.
Secondly, justification is context dependent: what makes a claim justified depends on the distinct epistemic norms that constitute that particular kind of social practice. The standards for justifying a claim in mathematics are very different from the standards for justifying a claim in biology. And those are in turn are quite different from the standards used to determine guilt or innocence in criminal law or civil law.
That seems right — being able to reliably distinguish knowledge from non-knowledge doesn’t require knowing what knowledge is. It’s not as if Homo erectus started out doing epistemology and then figured out how to extract marrow from bones using an Acheulean hand-ax. You can know all sorts of stuff without having any idea what knowledge is — and you’re justified in saying you know stuff because you know stuff. You don’t need to know what knowledge is in order to be justified in asserting that you know stuff.
(I think that this question is different from arguing about the KK principle. Since I’m inclined towards externalism about knowledge and meaning, I’m not a strong supporter of the KK principle.)