= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
VAuroch comments on Mainstream Epistemology for LessWrong, Part 1: Feldman on Evidentialism - LessWrong
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 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.