= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jockocampbell comments on Mainstream Epistemology for LessWrong, Part 1: Feldman on Evidentialism - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (82)
I agree with your statement:
However I think your are misunderstanding me.
I don't think we require 100% justified confidence for there to be knowledge I believe knowledge is always a probability and that scientific knowledge is always something less than 100%.
I suggest that knowledge is justified belief but it is always a probability less than 100%. As I wrote: I mean justified in the Bayesian sense which assigns a probability to a state of knowledge. The correct probability to assign may be calculated with the Bayesian update.
This is a common Bayesian interpretation. As Jaynes wrote:
I am fairly certain I understand your position better than you yourself do. You have eliminated the distinction between belief and knowledge entirely, thus rendering the word knowledge useless. Tabooing is not an argument; this conclusion is not valid.
You have repeatedly included in your argument false statements, even under your own interpretation. You have also misinterpreted quotes to back up your argument, such as misunderstanding the statement
To mean that knowledge is a probability, rather than the actual meaning of 'probability quantifies how much we know that we do not know'.
You are in a state of confusion, though you may not have realized it, and I have no interest in continuing to point out the flawed foundations if you will ignore the demonstration. I am done here.
From what I can see, you're arguing entirely over the definition of 'knowledge' instead of just splitting up individual concepts and giving them different names.
I basically agree, we are. What I'm trying to do is to maintain knowledge as a separate thing from belief. I don't have particular attachment to this definition of knowledge (as pointed out above, "justified true belief" is a little simplistic), but I can't find any way that jocko's version is different from straight-up belief.