Ultimately "Truth" is not out there somewhere...but inside of you. Even if the truth were out there somewhere, none of us could understand it as such until it sank into us and we came to see it as the truth it is. Until that happens we would never preceive it as the truth. So, all truth ultimately is preceived within. Isn't it strange that we are taught to regard "experts" and to search for truth outside ourselves, to look everywhere for it but the one place it registers....WITHIN!!!
If you are attentive to what I am stating it should become evident that we cannot begin to deal with the nature of knowledge without some basic knowledge itself as I said earlier one has to have justification for one to KNOW that the proposition is true for your alleged definition of knowledge so a logical question is how do we know what we know which would deal with the nature of proper justification as once more knowledge is properly justified belief .
First and foremost Knowledge is nothing but awareness it is consciousness of some state of affairs.Now concerning your treatment of knowledge I will affirm that knowledge is properly justified belief not justified true belief.As if justification does not lead to certainty then one really can not know that a proposition is true for example, so "justified true belief" is meaningless.A belief must be true for it to be judged as knowledge and proper justification is the only means to know that.
Expert opinion, especially when it comes to politics; monitory and physcial policy has been historically wrong the vase majority of the time. THat is to say wrong to the average working class hero.
I'm not quite sure how to exactly say that someone is an expert. Usually, it's someone who has studied an area of knowledge for years, and is highly qualified. There are those, though, who haven't really worked to become qualified, or did so to promote their own aims. Also, no one is 100% error free and can have false beliefs. So, how are we to be sure that the experts are 100% right, 100% of the time?
You can't know for sure that someone is 100% correct. However, peer-review is what keeps science honest. A hypothesis developed and tested by one scientist will later be tested and confirmed by others. If an expert has a different opinion than most of his/her peers, there is more reason to doubt him/her.
When someone claims to be an expert, that claim has a value of true or false, moreover, the best reasoned policies can turn out to be the worst of all posible impimentations. The fact is that we do not know. The world is like a jiant jugsaw puzzle, it's up to us to fugure it out. There are known patterns of bad reasoning though, avoiding these and knowing when someone or something is using bad logic puts one slightly ahead of the curve.
4) Tie unless we forget that our established beliefs are based on external reality (then we're free to be ignorant of the fact that letting external reality win is begging the question)
5.) This is arguable but I foresee the case for external reality. (this is what I meant by Occam's razor). Isn't it 1 assumption either way?
Anything that isn't testable is an assumption. This is why TheraminTrees told me to be careful when using external reality as an example. However, in order for a proposition such as the Matrix to not be doubted, it has the burden to overturn beliefs. This is something it simply cannot do. I have no reason to doubt that I am seeing, hearing, and experiencing the real world.
Wouldn't that make it such that if one found themselves with the belief (somehow) that there is a tea pot orbiting Saturn then they ought to keep that belief until given a reason to doubt it?
Perhaps you'll say 'yes, but there ARE reasons to doubt the tea cup'.
I watched the video. The difference between your example of the tea pot and the virtual reality (identified in the video) is that the tea pot is testable (at least theoretically). The hypothesis of living in a virtual reality isn't testable and, therefore, not science. There is no potential for justification and, consequently, no possibility of knowledge.
The axiom of existence is a justified belief by its self-refuting denial. This video offers no evidence to doubt it.
I think there's been a misunderstanding. The video doesn't propose that you don't exist. It is only proposing that you are not ~200 lbs of organic matter but instead a virtual agent (A.I). The denial of which is not self-refuting but also (they claim) mathematically certain.
Even if I grant that science is the only path to knowledge (which I don't), as long as a proposition 'may be true' how can we know it's false? Do you dismiss string theory out-of-hand because it is not testable?
You can't prove everything false. For instance, I cannot prove that god doesn't exist. However, there is no justified reason for me to believe that he/she exists; a god hypothesis is untestable (unless you agree with Stenger). An untestable hypothesis offers little value.
String theory, however, is not untestable. Although we might not be able to test it directly, there are many phenomena which can only be indirectly tested.
One of the predictions that string theory makes is that particles called gravitons float between dimensions. This explains why it is the weakest of the four forces. So if we were able to detect a graviton disappearing, it would offer some evidence of string theory.
Sure.. but the others have potential evidence too. One of the predictions Christianity makes is that Jesus will come back one day and reveal himself2the world. This would b evidence but does this have any bearing on the claim 4 the present? What if 'matrixism' predicted that 'freed humans' sometimes disappear when on the phone 2 exit the matrix. Then if we observe 'humans' disappearing while on phones it'd offer some evidence. I don't think 'potential 4 evidence' is what they mean by testable.
What does testable mean then? Just because we have yet to discover evidence of something, does that mean it's untestable?
Christianity does predict many things. However, it is built on a book that claims inspiration, but is filled with contradictions and inaccuracies. Because of this, I have reason to doubt its truthfulness. If Jesus showed up one day, then I would have to change my mind, but until that occurs, I am justified in not believing it.
Ok, but then, for the sake of consistency, you ought to not believe string theory until gravitons are observed to disappear ?
Now I'm even more confused. Isn't dismissing propositions that have no evidence one of the general 'rules' you're heading towards? But didn't you just make an exception for string theory?
I feel we've gone way off-topic. I'll try to come back and summarize each of our points and re-evaluate.
Do I have good reason to doubt christianity? Yes. It's alleged inspired text is fallable. The fact that it lost credibility on this gives me good reason to doubt the proposition of Jesus' return. However, if Jesus does come back one day, then I must accept it as real.
String theory, on the other hand, demonstrates no such contradictions. Instead, it has mathematical elegance and actually unites general relativity with quantum mechanics...and the big bang.
Thanks for the point ticobassie. Although some explain away Gettier's problem by saying you can't justify something that is false, most epistemologists accept Gettier's conclusions.
Interesting, I had not yet come across that response. Consider the Christian claim:
"I know Jesus was resurrected"
Of course a Christian believes it, if his name is Gary Habermas he may even provide extensive justification for this belief, but the last requirement to be able to claim to know is for this belief to be true. Now the question to me is: Is whether 'Event X happened' is true dependent on the level of justification provided or is it independent of that?
The problem with this position is that it results in philosophical skepticism (i.e certainty is a requirement for knowledge). But what can we really be certain about, including the claim that knowledge requires certainty?
This is why most contemporary epistemologists accept Gettier's conclusions. Instead, they try to analyze the problem in a different way. For instance, the pragmatist asks whether the belief led to a fruitful outcome.
This makes sense unless you believe our world is built on exquisite deception; once that is the case then we believe we live in an illusion. We cease to take this apparent world seriously and aspire to removing the illusion and finding reality. Our matrix is so perfect that very few realize it is an illusion. Those that do realize are removed and replaced with more compatible humans.
A thought provoking video Steve, but it's a little too early in the day for any sort of rational thinking. For the time being I'm just gonna assume you are all figments of my imagination and let it go at that.
I'm really enjoying this series Crazypills2! One of the things I particularly enjoy about this one is it's embracing of ambiguity and prompt for the viewer to reflect. The video mirrors the subject!
As a minor point, I would say the virtual reality argument is unsafe — if we are so immersed in a virtual perception as to make it physically/cognitively impenetrable, then, I'd say, it becomes untestable, and cannot be presented as a hypothesis, in the formal scientific sense, at all.
Well if all hypotheses are highly implausible, of course the only reasonable position is to deny all of them (Pr(they are all false) = 1 - Prob. of their union ~= 1)
in the field of science i would say an 'expert opinion' would have to come from someone who has been published(by a reputable source... not the NY Times) in that area of expertise...
richard dawkins might have an expert opinion on biological evolution but i'd be somewhat surprised if he would for something such as astronomy or any of the various forms of physics or chemistry.
I didn't quite get how we have no reason to doubt that 'we are not in the matrix'. Or was it no reasonable doubt? The hypothesis of an external reality better explains our experiences therefor we know we aren't in a virtual world? I don't follow. Could you explain/expand ?
Thanks for the question. My statement was we know we are not in the Matrix because the hypothesis of an external reality better explains our experiences.
A commonsense skeptic is justified in accepting perceptions when there is no reason not to. Should we deny that our senses (e.g. sight, taste, touch, etc.) are real? Who would have the burden of proof in a claim that we were in the Matrix?
A commonsense skeptic will not believe something unless there is good reason to.
Yes, when I said "external reality," I meant non-matrix.
One of the criticisms of inference to the best explanation is that it does beg the question. This is one of the problems with scientific realism. Some has chosen to accept pragmatism instead, as they believe the no miracles argument is circular.
Once I complete my series on critical thinking, I am considering doing a series on the philosophy of science in which I would discuss some of this.
You are asking the right questions newexperiment. Sign of a free thinker :-)
In their book, "How to think about weird things," Schick and Vaughn identify a "criteria of adequacy" to help compare competing hypotheses. '' I'll discuss this more in a later video, but here is a brief description of the criteria - (next post)
Ultimately "Truth" is not out there somewhere...but inside of you. Even if the truth were out there somewhere, none of us could understand it as such until it sank into us and we came to see it as the truth it is. Until that happens we would never preceive it as the truth. So, all truth ultimately is preceived within. Isn't it strange that we are taught to regard "experts" and to search for truth outside ourselves, to look everywhere for it but the one place it registers....WITHIN!!!
branchingvine 1 month ago
defending appeal to authority as justificaion for doubt? youre out of your mind.
TheElitePowerThatBe 3 months ago
@TheElitePowerThatBe "defending appeal to authority as justificaion for doubt?"
I don't defend appeals to authority. Instead, I give greater weight to the opinion of an expert in the area in which he/she is an expert.
crazypills2 3 months ago
i disliked this video because i thought the other one must feel alone :)
0UvaProductionz0 5 months ago
If you are attentive to what I am stating it should become evident that we cannot begin to deal with the nature of knowledge without some basic knowledge itself as I said earlier one has to have justification for one to KNOW that the proposition is true for your alleged definition of knowledge so a logical question is how do we know what we know which would deal with the nature of proper justification as once more knowledge is properly justified belief .
TheTruthgeneral 6 months ago
First and foremost Knowledge is nothing but awareness it is consciousness of some state of affairs.Now concerning your treatment of knowledge I will affirm that knowledge is properly justified belief not justified true belief.As if justification does not lead to certainty then one really can not know that a proposition is true for example, so "justified true belief" is meaningless.A belief must be true for it to be judged as knowledge and proper justification is the only means to know that.
TheTruthgeneral 6 months ago
I know that this video is a load of bullocks.
tdcnetwork 10 months ago
Knowledge puffs up, love enlightens, Faith is divine, knowledge contradicts itself.
Youngl3lood 1 year ago
Expert opinion, especially when it comes to politics; monitory and physcial policy has been historically wrong the vase majority of the time. THat is to say wrong to the average working class hero.
MJRockX 2 years ago
I'm not quite sure how to exactly say that someone is an expert. Usually, it's someone who has studied an area of knowledge for years, and is highly qualified. There are those, though, who haven't really worked to become qualified, or did so to promote their own aims. Also, no one is 100% error free and can have false beliefs. So, how are we to be sure that the experts are 100% right, 100% of the time?
gustjorodedheo 2 years ago
gustjorodedheo,
You can't know for sure that someone is 100% correct. However, peer-review is what keeps science honest. A hypothesis developed and tested by one scientist will later be tested and confirmed by others. If an expert has a different opinion than most of his/her peers, there is more reason to doubt him/her.
crazypills2 2 years ago
When someone claims to be an expert, that claim has a value of true or false, moreover, the best reasoned policies can turn out to be the worst of all posible impimentations. The fact is that we do not know. The world is like a jiant jugsaw puzzle, it's up to us to fugure it out. There are known patterns of bad reasoning though, avoiding these and knowing when someone or something is using bad logic puts one slightly ahead of the curve.
MJRockX 2 years ago
1) Tie.
2) Tie.
3) Tie.
4) Tie unless we forget that our established beliefs are based on external reality (then we're free to be ignorant of the fact that letting external reality win is begging the question)
5.) This is arguable but I foresee the case for external reality. (this is what I meant by Occam's razor). Isn't it 1 assumption either way?
newexperiment 2 years ago
newexperiement,
Anything that isn't testable is an assumption. This is why TheraminTrees told me to be careful when using external reality as an example. However, in order for a proposition such as the Matrix to not be doubted, it has the burden to overturn beliefs. This is something it simply cannot do. I have no reason to doubt that I am seeing, hearing, and experiencing the real world.
crazypills2 2 years ago
Wouldn't that make it such that if one found themselves with the belief (somehow) that there is a tea pot orbiting Saturn then they ought to keep that belief until given a reason to doubt it?
Perhaps you'll say 'yes, but there ARE reasons to doubt the tea cup'.
Fine.. but then... watch?v=Axw8AeNVS1c
Is a reason to doubt 'external reality'.
newexperiment 2 years ago
newexperiment,
I watched the video. The difference between your example of the tea pot and the virtual reality (identified in the video) is that the tea pot is testable (at least theoretically). The hypothesis of living in a virtual reality isn't testable and, therefore, not science. There is no potential for justification and, consequently, no possibility of knowledge.
The axiom of existence is a justified belief by its self-refuting denial. This video offers no evidence to doubt it.
crazypills2 2 years ago
I think there's been a misunderstanding. The video doesn't propose that you don't exist. It is only proposing that you are not ~200 lbs of organic matter but instead a virtual agent (A.I). The denial of which is not self-refuting but also (they claim) mathematically certain.
Even if I grant that science is the only path to knowledge (which I don't), as long as a proposition 'may be true' how can we know it's false? Do you dismiss string theory out-of-hand because it is not testable?
newexperiment 2 years ago
(1 of 2)
newexperiment,
You can't prove everything false. For instance, I cannot prove that god doesn't exist. However, there is no justified reason for me to believe that he/she exists; a god hypothesis is untestable (unless you agree with Stenger). An untestable hypothesis offers little value.
crazypills2 2 years ago
(2 of 2)
String theory, however, is not untestable. Although we might not be able to test it directly, there are many phenomena which can only be indirectly tested.
One of the predictions that string theory makes is that particles called gravitons float between dimensions. This explains why it is the weakest of the four forces. So if we were able to detect a graviton disappearing, it would offer some evidence of string theory.
crazypills2 2 years ago
Sure.. but the others have potential evidence too. One of the predictions Christianity makes is that Jesus will come back one day and reveal himself2the world. This would b evidence but does this have any bearing on the claim 4 the present? What if 'matrixism' predicted that 'freed humans' sometimes disappear when on the phone 2 exit the matrix. Then if we observe 'humans' disappearing while on phones it'd offer some evidence. I don't think 'potential 4 evidence' is what they mean by testable.
newexperiment 2 years ago
What does testable mean then? Just because we have yet to discover evidence of something, does that mean it's untestable?
Christianity does predict many things. However, it is built on a book that claims inspiration, but is filled with contradictions and inaccuracies. Because of this, I have reason to doubt its truthfulness. If Jesus showed up one day, then I would have to change my mind, but until that occurs, I am justified in not believing it.
crazypills2 2 years ago
Ok, but then, for the sake of consistency, you ought to not believe string theory until gravitons are observed to disappear ?
Now I'm even more confused. Isn't dismissing propositions that have no evidence one of the general 'rules' you're heading towards? But didn't you just make an exception for string theory?
I feel we've gone way off-topic. I'll try to come back and summarize each of our points and re-evaluate.
newexperiment 2 years ago
Do I have good reason to doubt christianity? Yes. It's alleged inspired text is fallable. The fact that it lost credibility on this gives me good reason to doubt the proposition of Jesus' return. However, if Jesus does come back one day, then I must accept it as real.
String theory, on the other hand, demonstrates no such contradictions. Instead, it has mathematical elegance and actually unites general relativity with quantum mechanics...and the big bang.
See the difference?
crazypills2 2 years ago
Great video!
Minor point at 1:25 ; the Gettier problem shows that the three criteria would cover most, but not all cases.
ticobassie 2 years ago
Thanks for the point ticobassie. Although some explain away Gettier's problem by saying you can't justify something that is false, most epistemologists accept Gettier's conclusions.
crazypills2 2 years ago
Interesting, I had not yet come across that response. Consider the Christian claim:
"I know Jesus was resurrected"
Of course a Christian believes it, if his name is Gary Habermas he may even provide extensive justification for this belief, but the last requirement to be able to claim to know is for this belief to be true. Now the question to me is: Is whether 'Event X happened' is true dependent on the level of justification provided or is it independent of that?
Cont.
ticobassie 2 years ago
If it is independent, then Christians can never claim to know that Jesus was resurrected, right?
ticobassie 2 years ago
ticobassie,
The problem with this position is that it results in philosophical skepticism (i.e certainty is a requirement for knowledge). But what can we really be certain about, including the claim that knowledge requires certainty?
This is why most contemporary epistemologists accept Gettier's conclusions. Instead, they try to analyze the problem in a different way. For instance, the pragmatist asks whether the belief led to a fruitful outcome.
crazypills2 2 years ago
Comment removed
DainXC 1 year ago
Which one was Bush 0:58 or 1:01?
pilgrimpater 2 years ago
Come on pilgrimpater , it's obviously 0.58. Do you honest think that Bush can ride a bike?
crazypills2 2 years ago
great stuff. you should narrate your quotes for more views. a lot of people don't like to read videos.
styrofoamheart 2 years ago
This makes sense unless you believe our world is built on exquisite deception; once that is the case then we believe we live in an illusion. We cease to take this apparent world seriously and aspire to removing the illusion and finding reality. Our matrix is so perfect that very few realize it is an illusion. Those that do realize are removed and replaced with more compatible humans.
rollsthepaul 2 years ago
A thought provoking video Steve, but it's a little too early in the day for any sort of rational thinking. For the time being I'm just gonna assume you are all figments of my imagination and let it go at that.
TheMudbrooker 2 years ago
TheMudbrooker,
I can't fault your logic :-)
crazypills2 2 years ago
Experts aside..what if you have a mystical experience that defies logic and reason, but is similarly shared between groups of people?
Should that not warrant a small amount of faith and "The benefit of the doubt"?
DarkF00L 2 years ago
Beware of the power of suggestion.
Aaberg123 2 years ago
DarkF00L,
Aaberg123 make a valid point.
My next video "Looking for truth in personal experience" will deal with this topic.
crazypills2 2 years ago
Looking forward to it. I'm prepared to debate.
DarkF00L 2 years ago
DarkF00L,
I look forward to your participation in the discussion.
Take care,
Steve
crazypills2 2 years ago
I'm really enjoying this series Crazypills2! One of the things I particularly enjoy about this one is it's embracing of ambiguity and prompt for the viewer to reflect. The video mirrors the subject!
As a minor point, I would say the virtual reality argument is unsafe — if we are so immersed in a virtual perception as to make it physically/cognitively impenetrable, then, I'd say, it becomes untestable, and cannot be presented as a hypothesis, in the formal scientific sense, at all.
TheraminTrees 2 years ago 2
TheraminTrees,
Thanks for the support. With regard to the virtual reality argument, point taken.
crazypills2 2 years ago
Thanks.
216trixie 2 years ago
Thanks for watching 216trixie.
crazypills2 2 years ago
Well if all hypotheses are highly implausible, of course the only reasonable position is to deny all of them (Pr(they are all false) = 1 - Prob. of their union ~= 1)
dreamy2 2 years ago
Experts of something are those who devoted much of his time investigating that something? They usually communicate and debate each other.
If their opinions conflict with each other, I think we should examine their reasons for their positions and the evidence behind.
dreamy2 2 years ago
Deep
Raptor302 2 years ago
Thanks Raptor302.
crazypills2 2 years ago
in the field of science i would say an 'expert opinion' would have to come from someone who has been published(by a reputable source... not the NY Times) in that area of expertise...
richard dawkins might have an expert opinion on biological evolution but i'd be somewhat surprised if he would for something such as astronomy or any of the various forms of physics or chemistry.
NeverEnoughBall 2 years ago
I didn't quite get how we have no reason to doubt that 'we are not in the matrix'. Or was it no reasonable doubt? The hypothesis of an external reality better explains our experiences therefor we know we aren't in a virtual world? I don't follow. Could you explain/expand ?
newexperiment 2 years ago
newexperiment,
Thanks for the question. My statement was we know we are not in the Matrix because the hypothesis of an external reality better explains our experiences.
A commonsense skeptic is justified in accepting perceptions when there is no reason not to. Should we deny that our senses (e.g. sight, taste, touch, etc.) are real? Who would have the burden of proof in a claim that we were in the Matrix?
A commonsense skeptic will not believe something unless there is good reason to.
crazypills2 2 years ago
I'm still confused.
What do you mean by 'external reality' ? Non-matrix? (i.e.trust-able senses?).
If so, Isn't it begging the question?
newexperiment 2 years ago
newexperiment,
Yes, when I said "external reality," I meant non-matrix.
One of the criticisms of inference to the best explanation is that it does beg the question. This is one of the problems with scientific realism. Some has chosen to accept pragmatism instead, as they believe the no miracles argument is circular.
Once I complete my series on critical thinking, I am considering doing a series on the philosophy of science in which I would discuss some of this.
crazypills2 2 years ago
By what measure do you mean 'best' (that it is better than other explanations)?
I can't think of anything other than Occam's razor.
newexperiment 2 years ago
(1 of 2)
You are asking the right questions newexperiment. Sign of a free thinker :-)
In their book, "How to think about weird things," Schick and Vaughn identify a "criteria of adequacy" to help compare competing hypotheses. '' I'll discuss this more in a later video, but here is a brief description of the criteria - (next post)
crazypills2 2 years ago
(2 of 2)
1) testability - must predict something other than what is predicted by the background theory
2) scope - which predicts the most diverse phenomena?
3) fruitfulness - which makes most successful novel predictions?
4) conservatism - which fits best with established beliefs?
5) simplicity - which makes the fewest assumptions?
crazypills2 2 years ago